Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 21 February at Seven o'clock.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 18 February at Seven o'clock.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL, (By Order)

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 February

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Tourism

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tourists visited Northern Ireland from the Republic in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): An estimated 364,000.

Mr. Paice: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me those figures. Does he agree that there are considerable opportunities for job creation in the tourism industry in Northern Ireland? What efforts is he making to promote Northern Ireland by portraying the proper image of much of it—that of a place with tremendously beautiful scenery and vistas which can attract tourists and make for an enjoyable holiday for all?

Mr. Needham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the beauty of our Province. We intend to increase our expenditure on attracting people from the Republic to the north. About twice as many people from the north go to the south. A recent survey showed that some 73 per cent. of the people of the south had not been to the north, and some 72 per cent. said that they had no intention of visiting it. However, of the 27 per cent. who had been there, some 98 per cent. said that they had thoroughly enjoyed it and would like to come back. Our message to the people of the south is therefore, "Come north and enjoy yourselves."

Mr. John D. Taylor: Now that the Dublin Government have complied with the European Community's request for the removal of restrictions on the movement of visitors from the Republic into Northern Ireland, what positive steps to promote tourism have the Government taken in respect of Dublin and the Republic?
When the Minister next meets Ministers from the Republic, will he request that the Southern Irish tourist board, in its offices abroad, carry tourist literature from Northern Ireland and recommend those who come to the Republic to visit Northern Ireland as well?

Mr. Needham: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are spending some £800,000 jointly with Bond Failte and we have together arranged a programme of marketing to attract more people from abroad to go north when they visit the island of Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, some 60,000 visitors to Northern Ireland go to the Republic first.
We have extended and improved our office facilities in the south and we believe that this year particularly, when many people may not be thinking of travelling abroad, there will be opportunities for us to cash in not only on people from the south but on people from Great Britain. We believe that we now have the facilities and the product —and we know that we have the people and the countryside—to make a success of it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: How do the figures that the Minister has given compare with those for the past five years? Is the money that he is spending really producing the goods?

Mr. Needham: We have not yet started to spend the money in any great quantity. The number of visitors to Northern Ireland is increasing, from some 900,000 in 1988–89 to, we hope, some 1·6 million by 1994. The 1990 figures will show an overall increase of some 6 per cent., but a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in the number of people coming purely for holiday purposes. The total number is up to some 1·3 million.
Those are not very substantial figures, but if we improve our ability to attract visitors, we could create some 20,000 or 30,000 new jobs in the north over a period of years. None of that is helped by the image created by violence or, occasionally, by those who report on that image in a way that is not entirely balanced.

Mr. Mallon: In anticipation of an influx of visitors, especially from the Republic of Ireland, can the Minister suggest which roads they should use so that tourists, who are very sensitive to terrorism, will not be immediately faced by lookout posts and checkpoints of an inordinate nature? If tourists come to a checkpoint and find the road closed, does the Minister envisage that they will continue their journey into Northern Ireland by using other roads or that they will return to the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows all too well, the reason for the checkpoints is the continuing level of paramilitary violence. If tourists have to go through hideous-looking checkpoints, I accept that it does nothing for our image or our ability to attract people to Northern Ireland. We are considering what can be done to make checkpoints easier on and more pleasant to the eye. Nevertheless, the security of people travelling from one side of the border to another is paramount.

Trust Ports

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to privatise Belfast and other trust ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: I intend bringing forward a draft Order in Council that will have regard to the provisions of the Ports Bill. This will provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports—Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry and Warrenpoint—to come forward with privatisation schemes.

Mr. Janman: I am very pleased with my hon. Friend's answer and 1 congratulate him on his clear commitment to allow those ports to go into the private sector. May I suggest, however, that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on whether privatisation of those trust ports can be included in the Ports Bill. That would send a clear signal to the IRA, Sinn Fein and others that Ulster is part of the United Kingdom and that there is no need for separate legislation for Ulster. When Ulster is affected by legislation, it should be debated fully on the Floor of the House, as debate of the Ports Bill on Report would allow it to be.

Mr. Needham: Of course Ulster is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so as long as the majority so wish. However, this is a transferred matter and the view of many is that such matters should, if it is possible at some time, be capable of being decided by the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. I repeat however, that we intend to introduce an Order in Council early in 1992 and to have it on the statute book by the end of that year. Then we shall consider what ports can be privatised. In the meantime, a substantial investment programme in those ports is taking place and I am delighted to say that most of them are expanding rapidly.

Mr. Beggs: I have much sympathy with the observations of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). I regret that the Minister has announced today that this is to be done by means of another Order in Council. Does the Minister agree that the unparalleled record of growth and development of Larne harbour and the excellent working relationships there suggest clearly the opportunities that will arise for Belfast port and the other trust ports after privatisation?

Mr. Needham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. A large percentage of Larne's business comes from the south. The amount of business at Warrenpoint has doubled in the past five years and business has increased by 40 per cent. at Belfast. Larne is an example to any port of how to be efficient, productive, competitive and successful.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give an undertaking that when the Order in Council is introduced it will allow management and employees to opt for a management-employee buy-out?

Mr. Needham: We shall consider that question most carefully. We are already following what my hon. Friend and his colleagues are suggesting here.

Mr. Stott: It is clear from the questions to the Minister that there is a great deal of interest in the proposal. The Ports Bill is in Standing Committee, where Members of Parliament can table amendments, scrutinise the Bill and interrogate Ministers. How do the Government propose to allow Members of Parliament from the Province and others to give equal consideration to these very important Government proposals? Does he not think that it is unacceptable to privatise a major sector of Northern Ireland's economy by means an Order in Council, which allows debate for only an hour?

Mr. Needham: I repeat that it is a transferred matter. The Government are constantly looking for ways to create systems that have the agreement of the whole House on how Northern Ireland affairs can be conducted. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) never misses an opportunity to criticise, but he has not yet put forward a proposal that is acceptable to the majority of hon. Members.

Terrorism

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to introduce to compensate those persons who have suffered damage or loss, either in their businesses or occupations, as a result of security measures taken against terrorism.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): There is provision under section 28 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 19'18 for the payment of compensation where, under the Act,
"any real or personal property is taken, occupied, destroyed or damaged, or any other act is done interfering with private rights of property".

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his answer, but surely he can inform the House more adequately that there is no provision for compensation for people who suffer loss of business, loss of jobs or loss of homes because of legitimate and proper security measures. The only way to get compensation is to suffer direct damage as a result of explosion or other terrorist activity. Surely the people who are in the front line and subject to economic and social deprivation because of the necessary buildings and fortifications which destroy businesses are entitled to be compensated for their losses on behalf of the community.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the problem is one of security and caused by the activity of paramilitaries who engage in terrorist activity at the expense of the whole community. The community pays a price for that. I accept that there is genuine hardship in some cases. Ex gratia payments are available to some people in Northern Ireland, depending on the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind he might contemplate some of those activities.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware that there are four men in Maghaberry prison who lost their jobs because of terrorism? They also require compensation. Will he compensate those men—known as the Armagh Four—with a retrial?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. He also knows that these are matters which are presently under review.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that every citizen in Northern Ireland has, directly or indirectly, suffered loss and damage at the hands of terrorists? Does he accept, or is he aware of, the perception that there are occasions when the terrorist is compensated rather more generously than the victim? Does he agree that all hon. Members and those of us who serve on councils have a duty to support the forces of the Crown in eradicating terrorism from whatever quarter it comes?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree wholeheartedly with the first and last points made by the right hon. Gentleman. As for the second point, I should be sad if such a perception existed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that anyone who claims compensation in Northern Ireland is treated under the law without any particular favour, and certainly with no particular bias towards those who may in some way have been involved in terrorist activity.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best measures against terrorism would be the introduction of video cameras during interrogation? That would increase the chances of conviction because it would be more difficult for the suspects to withdraw the confessions that they had made before the camera. As that measure has been recommended by Lord Colville, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a satisfactory measure to take now?

Dr. Mawhinney: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend was a matter of considerable debate when Standing Committee B was considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. My hon. Friend may find the arguments deployed in that debate of some interest.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister remind his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that that hon. Gentleman was himself a member of that Committee and actually voted against the proposal to introduce video recordings in such cases?
Does the Minister accept that he told the Committee that schemes existed for making ex gratia payments in such areas? Does he further accept that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that what we really require is a statutory scheme so that every claim can be treated on its merits and every settlement can be seen to be fair?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated the matter at some length in Committee. He advanced certain arguments, and so did I. I made it clear that the Government, with some reluctance, had reached the view that it was not possible to take the steps urged on us in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I also said that I would reflect on what had been said in Committee—without any commitment—and that we would consider the arguments that had been deployed. I am happy to reaffirm that, without any commitment, we will certainly reflect further on those arguments.

School Sport

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on sport in schools in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: Physical education, which embraces sports activities and games, presently forms a common but voluntary element of the primary and secondary curricula in Northern Ireland. From next September, physical education is to become a compulsory part of the Northern Ireland curriculum. My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General is currently considering advice from the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council on the content of the programme of study for this subject.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that physical education and games are to become a compulsory part of the curriculum. Can he assure us that such activities will be suitably geared to the ability of each individual boy and girl, and can he say how well Northern Ireland schools are doing in out-of-school games and physical education on Saturdays and in the evenings?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for the constructive interest that he takes in these matters. Physical education is obviously geared to the abilities of the individual child. My hon. Friend asked about games out of school hours. He will know that Northern Ireland schools have a proud record of sporting activity and achievement. Although I do not have the figures to prove it, I would guess that, given the size of the population in Northern Ireland, we probably produce greater sporting excellence than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Trimble: May I direct the Minister's attention to another aspect of training and education and ask him to


consult the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what steps can be taken to retrain the 140 workers at C. S. Brooks—a factory in my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about sport.

Dr. Mawhinney: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but the question is about sport in schools.

Constitution

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the political parties on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I continue to seek agreement on a basis for formal talks which could lead to a comprehensive political accommodation satisfactory to all relevant interests and addressing all relevant aspects of the matter. I regret that it has not yet proved possible to bridge the gaps between the various parties' positions. I remain convinced of the powerful case for transferring political power, authority and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland, provided this can be done on a basis enjoying widespread support.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend give up his honest and brave attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable and will he eschew all new political initiatives involving the so-called Irish dimension and concentrate instead, with the political parties in Northern Ireland, on providing a decent system of local government and firm and fair central Government and, to coin a phrase, on "extirpating the IRA"?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. But I am determined to pursue the process on which we are engaged until it is absolutely clear that the positions of the various parties are incompatible. On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I will consider any workable proposals for changes in the role of local government in Northern Ireland if they seem likely to command widespread acceptance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Secretary of State say what are the inherent defects of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental process which inhibit Ministers from responding positively to British suggestions and recognising Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? A week ago today the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition united in opposing terrorism and seeking to maintain democracy. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that would demand retrospective restoration of democracy to Northern Ireland? Will he take steps speedily to restore it?

Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Gentleman had listened closely to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), he would have heard me say how anxious I was to effect the transfer for which the hon. Gentleman asks. In terms of the context of the hon. Gentleman's question, political parties from both sides of the community want any talks to cover matters which must necessarily involve the Irish Government.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State comment on the recent Dublin proposals? Does he agree that whether or not the talks fail, a considerable amount of goodwill has been generated by them and that it would surely be a tragedy if efforts were not made to build on that goodwill at either an official or an unofficial level?

Mr. Brooke: I have received some further proposals from the Irish Government. I believe that they have merit and will keep us in play, but I do not know whether they offer us the opportunity of reaching our goal. They are further evidence of the Irish Government's desire to contribute to bridging the gap. I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the goodwill that has been engendered by this process, but, as we come to what I think will be the conclusion of this part of the process, I think that it will be necessary in the closing stages for there to be considerable political will to make sure that we bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the summer of last year the Social Democratic and Labour party presented to him a written position which opened the way for full talks and negotiations? Will he further confirm that last week the Irish Government presented a written position paper to him which held out the prospect of moving forward to those real negotiations? Does he expect at any stage a written position from the Unionist party which might hold out some hope of moving towards the type of negotiations that we want?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about both his party and the Irish Government, but he will be aware from the conversations in which we have been engaged mutually that there have been sticking points in all parties' proposals about how we proceed. We have sought to accommodate those in the decision that we reach. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Unionists, he will recall his reluctance to engage in direct conversations and negotiations until we had reached an accommodation as to the basis of such talks. Therefore, he must find a way of putting that question to them by some other means.

Mr. Amery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House has been patient with him over the negotiations? We were led to believe that we would be given some statement by Christmas, yet we are now deep into February. That is frustrating. If the Secretary of State cannot make a statement yet, will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate in which we can discuss all the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the patience of both my right hon. Friend and the House. The only time when we had hoped that I could make a statement was at the time of the renewal of powers debate last year. I understand the anxiety of the House to see progress in these matters. I believe that they are coming to a conclusion. I hope that in the aftermath of that, it will be possible for us to debate them.

Mr. Hume: Let me put the Secretary of State right on his recent mistaken remark. The position of the SDLP, long before the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State and since he has held that office, is that my party will


sit down tomorrow with the Unionist parties to discuss any subject under the sun without any precondition. The Unionist parties chose to follow a process whereby they will talk to us only through the Secretary of State. Throughout that process I have seen written positions from the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government, and I have put the written position from my party. However, I have never seen a written position from either of the Unionist parties.

Mr. Brooke: I do not want to get into an altercation with the hon. Gentleman about this. He is slightly misremembering the process in which we have been engaged in the past 13 months if he does not believe that he has occasionally raised a point that has caused us to pause in that debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the first position paper ever given to the Government was given by the united Unionists when we engaged in talks with his predecessor? Will he also confirm that at the last meeting that he had with Unionist leaders a position paper was given to him and that we have given him other position papers during the talks? Will he now please confirm to the House the definition that is now accepted by his Government of widespread support`' Is he saying to the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was given widespread support, or that that widespread support does not come from Ulster but that it is widespread as long as Dublin goes with it, because Dublin stopped him from making a statement in this House on 5 July?

Mr. Brooke: In the terms of the first two questions put by the hon. Gentleman, I so confirm what he said. Position papers were put to my predecessor and myself by the Unionist parties. I reiterate, however, that I do not believe that we shall be able to reach a constitutional framework in terms not only of Northern Ireland, but of relations with the Government of the Republic arising therefrom unless there is a broad support for it across the community.

Mr. McNamara: Last week the Secretary of State spoke about putting up the shutters on the negotiations and today he anticipated that they would come to a conclusion. However, last week, having received the proposals from the Irish Government, he seemed to show a degree of greater optimism, but I am not quite sure how one measures the degree of greatness. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give, for reasons we well understand, those proposals to the Unionist leaders last Thursday, but he has said that he is prepared to test the present procedures to destruction. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would prefer him to continue to test and probe and that we hope that all the parties concerned will consider the seriousness of the consequences should the talking cease? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he hopes to meet again the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties and representatives of the Irish Government as that will give us a better picture of what has been going on in the past 18 months?

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gives to the process in which we are engaged and for urging us to continue with it. I have already said that I believe that matters are likely to come to a conclusion in the reasonably near future. By

definition, that will not be a unilateral or arbitrary act on my part and it will involve, of course, conversations with all the others concerned.

Rural Towns

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for the regeneration of small rural towns.

Mr. Needham: In March last year the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the International Fund for Ireland joined together in a £16 million initiative specifically aimed at the regeneration of Northern Ireland's disadvantaged smaller towns. Assistance has been approved for Coalisland and Castlederg and a number of proposals for other small towns and villages are well advanced.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Unfortunately good news rarely hits the headlines. Can he say how many towns and villages are likely to benefit under this excellent scheme?

Mr. Needham: A large number of towns and villages in Northern Ireland need to benefit and will benefit. Established throughout Northern Ireland are a large number of community projects, including Armagh, Newry, Carrickfergus, Strabane and the Tyrone development association, all working together cross-community. The projects involve councillors, usually Members of Parliament, community groups and voluntary groups, all trying to bring success and regeneration in the face of a long history of violence and an image of terrorism. Anybody going to those towns will see the determination of the local people to get together to find a better future. It is being shown physically in the towns that I have mentioned.

Mr. John D. Taylor: While the urban development grants are welcome, does the Minister recognise that generally they are restricted to smaller towns and villages in the western part of the Province? Does he recognise that many small towns and villages in counties Down and Antrim in the eastern part of the Province are being denied grants and feel that they are being discriminated against? Will he look into the possibility of extending urban development grants to smaller towns and villages in the eastern part of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: It is possible for disadvantaged towns or areas of towns to come forward under the CRISP initiative with plans and programmes. The areas that have worked together, often with the support and backing of the local Member of Parliament, have come much further than the others, which do not have the same degree of consensus. The concept that we are adopting is the same in principle for all towns throughout Northern Ireland. Clearly, we are making sure that we deal first with the most disadvantaged.

Community Relations Officers

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many district councils have agreed to use Government funds to appoint community relations officers; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: All 26 district councils have been invited to submit proposals to improve community relations in their areas. The proposals should include the appointment of a community relations officer and programmes to develop cross-community contact and increase mutual understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity.
To date, 10 district councils have appointed community relations officers and eight others are expected to appoint officers in the near future. Discussions about policy and programmes are continuing with a further five councils.

Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the development of community relations is a major help in defeating terrorism through the promotion of better understanding between communities? How does his Department propose to help in the funding of district council community relations officers?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his comments. To the extent that people understand each other better and misunderstanding and mythology are removed, so communities have greater cohesion and greater common ground. On funding, the budget for the programme for next year is about £1 million and the Government will pay 75 per cent. of agreed costs.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: In congratulating Belfast city council on maintaining its proposed rates in line with inflation, does the Minister agree that it would be better to employ community relations officers directly and second them to the city council and to the district councils? Would not that be a better solution to rate increases?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that 10 councils have already accepted funding on the basis that I outlined and eight others are about to do so. I can see no reason why Belfast should be treated differently. Given the behaviour and some of the debates that have taken place in Belfast recently, community relations still have some way to go within the council chamber, never mind outside it.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister find it strange that his proposal for the appointment of community relations officers has found great acceptance among Provisional Sinn Fein in local government? Does he also find it strange that in Magherafelt district council recently, Provisional Sinn Fein voted for the appointment of community relations officers under the Minister's scheme, yet at the next meeting, after a bomb which was designed to destroy and mutilate the residents of Magherafelt, Provisional Sinn Fein would not condemn the IRA for its action? Is that the sort of community relations office that we shall have in the future?

Dr. Mawhinney: I repeat what I said when I paid a visit to see that bomb damage in Magherafelt—that I was pleased that Magherafelt council had unanimously voted to accept the proposal. That is the best of all cross-community support. I think that there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman's comments about Sinn Fein.

Social Security Fraud

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the detection and prosecution of social security fraud in the province.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The Government are giving high priority to detecting and prosecuting social security fraud. More staff are now engaged and we are up to 107 in the Province; more cases have been uncovered, with 1,000 people prosecuted last year; and greater savings have been realised, of over £6 million this year. We shall maintain our efforts against fraud in the interest of all, but we must also encourage anyone entitled to benefit to claim.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware of the scathing Public Accounts Committee report on this issue which was discussed in the House in 1987? If not, will he ask the present Secretary of State about it, as he was the Paymaster General at the Treasury when the matter was debated? Is it not a fact that the Government are unable to inquire into the extent of social security fraud in Northern Ireland because of gangsterism and because the Conservative party is tolerating much higher levels of abuse than it would tolerate in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is talking absolute rubbish. We are completely in tune with the normal ways of trying to combat social security fraud. We understand entirely the sensitivity of the issue, and that makes the job much more difficult to tackle there than in Great Britain. We have restructured the Department, extra staff are deployed, we give them extensive training and we give them very good guidance indeed. They perform an extremely courageous task. New computer systems have been installed to help detection and staff have been deployed where the risks are greatest.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We congratulate the Minister on looking after the public distribution of public money. Has he considered looking at the situation where some fraudulent claims are made out of need as opposed to those that are made out of greed?

Mr. Hanley: Claims should never be made out of greed. There are plenty of allowable parts of the social security system that allow those in need to claim. Indeed, we encourage people to claim. We have information and advice centres and a free line telephone system, so people should not go without.

Coronary Disease

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new intitiatives he is proposing to combat coronary heart disease.

Mr. Hanley: The "Change of Heart" coronary prevention programme launched in 1986 has been at the forefront of the strategy to reduce preventable illness and death and will be further developed in the coming years by the recently established Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend will be well aware that Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of heart disease


in the world. Does he agree that this is a serious situation which calls for a major campaign of education in diet and health? Does he feel that the general practitioners of Ulster have a part to play in teaching people how to look after themselves and thereby reduce the incidence of heart disease in the Province?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend's knowledge of this matter is well known, but I am pleased to say that the figures he has given are not quite accurate. Northern Ireland no longer has the worst record in the world. Over the past 10 years, the number of deaths from heart disease has fallen by about 25 per cent., and now stands at about 4,500 a year. Following the introduction of the new general practitioner contract last year, there are encouraging signs that GPs are taking a much more active role in promoting health through the establishment of health promotion clinics and centres.

Kilroot Power Station

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position regarding the construction of phase II of Kilroot power station.

Mr. Needham: Construction of phase II of Kilroot cannot begin until decisions are taken on whether the station is to be coal/oil-fired or gas-fired. The provision of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland for use in power generation is being urgently explored.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister checked his files? If he has, he will realise that I have been raising this matter year after year after year. There is an empty shell at Kilroot, and Northern Ireland Electricity wants to build phase II there. We in Ayrshire have low-sulphur coal, which is ready to be shipped to Northern Ireland. Why is the decision taking so long?

Mr. Needham: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is one of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom and, whatever we do, we must ensure that energy prices are as low as possible. If we were to have coal-fired generation at Kilroot phase II it would require flue gas desulphurisation, whereas gas generation would not. We want to try to get a gas supply into Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reductions in interest rates following a fall in inflation will sharpen the already competitive position of our motor industry which increased exports last year by 18 per cent? Are not rising exports, rising investment and increased skill levels proof positive that we are achieving what Labour claims to want, and that we should stick with our policies, rather than cut and run?

The Prime Minister: I can scarcely disagree with my hon. Friend. The motor industry has a very impressive export record, which is a tribute to good design, increasing competitiveness and the increasing work rate of employees in the industry.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to the 110,000 people who lost their jobs in the course of the last month that they did so as a direct result of his incompetent economic policy?

The Prime Minister: It is interesting that during the 40 months in which unemployment fell, month after month after month, the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of this matter. I regret the rise in unemployment, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to concede that the level of unemployment in this country, at 6·6 per cent., is not only well below the European Community average but very well below the average levels of most of our European partners.

Mr. Kinnock: Today's figures show the biggest January rise in unemployment since 1981—the time of the last Tory slump. When the Conservatives have done this twice in a decade—regardless of who has been the leader, or who the Chancellor—is it any wonder that they will always be known as the party of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to explain the following unemployment rates: 9 per cent. in France, 9·9 per cent. in Italy, 9·3 per cent. in Canada, and 6·6 per cent. here. He may also have overlooked the fact that there has been a considerable rise in the number of job vacancies.

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister—who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of France—will explain why, if Tory policies are to work, hundreds of thousands of people have to stop working.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's track record on such predictions is simply not good. He will recall predicting that mass unemployment of 6 million was inevitable. It was not, and his predictions now are wrong.

Sir Anthony Grant: When my right hon. Friend reflects today on the position in the Gulf, will he consider that a dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has been unscrupulous enough to murder his own people over several years, will probably have no scruples about allowing innocent people to suffer in a bombing raid for propaganda purposes?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tragic event in Baghdad and the sad loss of life should not mean that a single allied soldier should be put at risk by a premature land assault?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we shall consider very carefully when it is right to launch a land assault. The position in that regard remains as I have described to the House in the past. Everyone regrets the death of civilians, particularly in the tragic circumstances of the past few hours. But the United States has explained why it attacked that particular site: it did so on the basis of an assessment that showed that it was a legitimate military target, which played a part in the Iraqi war effort.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in considering the lessons of the terrible tragedy that took place in Baghdad last night, we should not forget that Saddam Hussein has, not through inadvertence, but


through acts of deliberate policy, killed more Muslims than any other living person? Does he also agree that, as the terrible toll of the war rises, so should our determination to build a just and durable peace to follow it?
Will the Prime Minister answer the question that I fear he dodged last week and say whether he is prepared to give the United Nations, in whose name we are fighting the war, the lead role in building the peace that follows?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the observations that the right hon. Gentleman made at the outset of his question. To avoid doubt, I shall repeat the point that the allies are not targeting civilians, unlike Saddam Hussein, who continues to fire missiles wholly indiscriminately at built-up population centres. On the subject of the United Nations, clearly we must consider with all our colleagues in the allied forces, particularly the Arab states upon and around whose lands the conflict is taking place, how to proceed at the end of the conflict.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his successful visit to Germany on Monday? If he will forgive the pun, far from being a "brugeing" experience, it was a successful visit, both bilaterally and in terms of the resuscitation of European solidarity?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to ensure that we play a leading part in the centre of the Community, which means that we have the closest possible bilateral contact with all our European partners.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Was yesterday's massacre of women and children in Amiriya a good example, under the 1977 Geneva protocol, of precision targeting of the right or wrong target? Was not the burning and lasceration of those children's bodies, to correctly use a military euphemism, the degrading of nobody in Baghdad but of those in whose name that slaughter took place?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman puts the matter with his customary bad taste and inaccuracy. As I explained a moment ago, there has been precision bombing, and that site was bombed because there was legitimate reason to believe that it was a military target.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern at the advertising and the unsolicited temptations to borrow pursued by banks and other lenders in recent years, for which many businesses and many individuals are now paying a painful price.
As interest rates come down, will my right hon. Friend use his influence as Prime Minister, as former Chancellor

and as a former banker to impress on the banking industry the need for responsible lending—and will he consider what role the Government might play in that?

The Prime Minister: I have done as my hon. Friend suggests. My views on this subject are well known. I am very glad to see that the banks and building societies are addressing the issue of the marketing and provision of credit. As the banks have freely acknowledged, the code that they have covers only banks and building societies. That is why, in December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a consultative document proposing a number of specific changes to tighten the law on consumer credit. These measures will have a wider field of application than just banks and building societies.

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Armstrong: Did the Prime Minister notice the figures published yesterday that show that the top 20 local education authorities providing nursery education are Labour, and the bottom 20 are Tory? Given the abysmal performance of Tory authorities, when the Secretary of State for Education and Science two weeks ago abandoned any commitment to the expansion of nursery education, did he have the Prime Minister's approval?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should look at the whole provision of education services throughout the country, and if she is looking at lists of the top and the bottom authorities she should also look at the authorities with the highest community charges.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to send a message of congratulations to the voluntary bodies and statutory agencies that have worked so hard during the past few days to provide shelter for the homeless in London? Will he note the comments of the deputy director of Shelter, who said the other day that the arrangements made were magnificent and excellent?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved—particularly the voluntary organisations that have co-operated so willingly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. As a result of that swift response there should be no need for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of London during this period of extreme bad weather.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: What is the Prime Minister going to do now that John Yates, the highly respected NHS management consultant appointed by the Government to advise on reducing waiting lists, has resigned, describing


the Government's policy, of spending £100 million to find out that waiting lists have increased, as a total waste of money? Would not it be better to sack the Secretary of State for Health and keep Mr. Yates?

The Prime Minister: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health invited Mr. Yates to see him to discuss the reduction in waiting lists. Mr. Yates refused.

Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the successful expansion of higher education under this Administration? Are not the one in five school leavers going into further and higher education, compared with the miserable one in eight when Labour was in power, a crucial part of building a better trained and educated workforce? Are not this Government providing the resources for that?

The Prime Minister: Indeed they are. My hon. Friend is right and I entirely agree with his remarks about the importance of higher education—both universities and polytechnics—and the role that they are playing in trying to equip our young people for a better start in life.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Prime Minister truly aware of the crisis facing agriculture, with farm incomes at their lowest in real terms since the second world war and record numbers leaving the industry? Why then is the Ministry of Defence supplying Argentine and Uruguayan beef to British forces in the Gulf when British cold stores are jam packed with intervention beef, subsidised and paid for by British taxpayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman assist taxpayers, the armed forces and agriculture by sorting that out?

The Prime Minister: It is because of such absurdities that we are keen to see a proper reform of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear that that is a top priority for us and we shall seek to negotiate it with our colleagues in Europe.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's problems of homelessness have been caused, first, by the way in which the private rented sector has been regulated almost out of existence and, secondly, by the incompetence of many local authorities, mainly Labour controlled, which have more than 100,000 vacant council houses up and down the country? [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will take the necessary radical action to free and deregulate the private rented sector in order to bring many hundreds of thousands of empty flats and rooms back on to the market?

The Prime Minister: Nothing could better have illustrated the Opposition's hostility to the private rented sector than their activities while my hon. Friend asked his question. It was absurd that the private rented sector was declining and properties were left empty because of rent control. We have introduced to the subsidy arrangements all sorts of incentives to encourage local authorities to bring properties into use. We continue to examine further ways to stimulate the private sector.

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the record number of 40,000 home owners who had their homes repossessed during the past 12 months as a result of his high interest rates policy? What advice does he give those people?

The Prime Minister: All repossessions are a tragedy for those who are involved. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that repossessions account for less than one fifth of 1 per cent. of home owners and that the overwhelming majority of those are as a result of marriage breakdown.

Librarian (Retirement)

Mr. Speaker: I have received a letter from the Librarian indicating his wish to retire on 5 July this year. I will arrange for the text of his letter to be published in the Official Report.
Dr. Menhennet has worked in the Library for some 37 years and has held the office of Librarian during the past 15 years, a time of dramatic development in the range of Library services and the demands made upon them. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in thanking Dr. Menhennet for his distinguished service to the House and, at the same time, will acknowledge the incomparable help provided to us by the Library as a whole. I have appointed Mr. Dermot Englefield, the Deputy Librarian, to succeed. Dr. Menhennet from 6 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I should like to associate the whole House with the tribute that you, Mr. Speaker, have paid to the Librarian and with the thanks that you have expressed to the staff of the Library working under his leadership.
During his nine years as Deputy Librarian and his 15 years as Librarian, Dr. Menhennet has overseen extensive development of the Library in many ways. He is well respected by fellow heads of Department, staff of the House, his own staff and, of course, by hon. Members and our staff. On behalf of the House, I should also like to convey our sincere gratitude to him for all that he has done and to wish him well for a long and happy retirement.

Dr. John Cunningham: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with your thanks, Mr. Speaker, and those of the Leader of the House to the Librarian.
David Menhennet has been not only a great servant of the House but a friend to many hon. Members. He has guided the Library through many important changes, wide extensions of services to Members, and huge improvements to the information and resources that are available to us all. He deserves our thanks and congratulations on his tremendous effort and on the way that he has carried out his duties in the interests of the whole House. We thank him warmly.

Sir Bernard Braine: Having been in this place for 40 years, may I, on behalf of the generality of

hon. Members, say how much the service provided to Members by the Library staff has improved and is improving? We readily acknowledge the influence that the Librarian has brought to bear during his term of office. For that, I say on behalf of my colleagues, "Thank you."

Mr. A. J. Beith: My right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associated with the tribute that has been paid to Dr. Menhennet and with the good wishes that have been expressed. His quiet competence, objectivity, and readiness to serve Members personified the qualities of the Library itself which we have come to admire so much.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: As the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee for the past nine years, I associate my Committee and the Services Committee with the tributes that have been paid to the service of Dr. Menhennet. For the past 15 years, the Library has been headed by a remarkable duo who have seen through the tremendous changes to which you, Mr. Speaker, made reference.
As Dr. Menhennet leaves, I can think of no finer successor to welcome to the post of Librarian than Mr. Dermot Englefield.

Following is the text of the letter:

Dear Mr. Speaker

I write to inform you of my wish to retire, later this year, from the office of Librarian of the House of Commons which I have had the honour to hold since 1 July 1976. I therefore place my office at your disposal with effect from 6 July 1991.

I have had the great privilege and pleasure of working in the Library for some 37 years, and of seeing its services to the House and to Members develop and grow, just as the needs of Members themselves for better information and research services have grown. First as Deputy Librarian and then as Librarian, I have had the great good fortune to be associated with those developments. Such growth could not have taken place without the support, friendly interest and encouragement of Members on all sides of the House, and the advice and guidance of the Library Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. As a member of the Board of Management since it was first established, I have also been very conscious of the goodwill and understanding of my colleagues, both inside and outside the Department of the Library.

For all that, but most especially for the honour of serving the House as its Librarian during the last 15 years, I am and will remain deeply grateful.

Yours sincerely

David Menhennet

Librarian

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 FEBRUARY—SeCOnd Reading of the Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Impact of the Poll Tax".
Afterwards there will be a debate on another Opposition motion entitled "The Impact of Government Policies on Manufacturing Industry".
WEDNESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Progress of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.
THURSDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day, 1st part). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Gulf War Aims and the Restoration of Peace in the Region". The debate will arise on an Opposition motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of Criminal Justice Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on his 54th birthday—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is that all?

Dr. Cunningham: —and wishing him many happy returns to the Opposition Benches.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will have a debate on Welsh affairs as close as possible to 1 March, which is St. David's day, so that we may have the traditional annual debate on all aspects of affairs in the Principality?
Whilst affairs in the Gulf have understandably overlain many other issues, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on important developments in countries in central and eastern Europe, with particular reference to the assistance given to them by Britain and the European Community? That is a very important issue in European terms, and I hope that time can be found to debate it.
When may we debate the Government's public expenditure White Paper? We understand the Government's continuing reluctance to provide time for such debates, given the deepening crisis and the widening and damaging economic recession—highlighted again today by a dreadful increase in unemployment and appalling figures for the reposession of houses because people are no longer able to keep up their mortgage payments. There is widespread concern, particularly on this side of the House, about the continuing failures of

Government policy in that area. We are entitled to a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, and I hope that we shall have one soon.

Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind good wishes on my birthday. For the first time in my life, I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when he remarked from a sedentary position, "Is that all?" in relation to the number of years.
I confirm that it is our intention to have the traditional debate on Welsh affairs at around the time of St. David's day.
European Community aid to the Soviet Union is, I agree, a very important matter. As I have said on other occasions, I hope very much to find a suitable opportunity for us to consider it before long.
There is absolutely no "continuing reluctance" on the part of the Government to arrange a public expenditure debate. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that, given that we had a full debate yesterday on the economy and the various matters that he has raised—the debate on the autumn statement. I agree, however, that a further debate should replace the traditional White Paper debate, and we intend to organise one. Given that we no longer have the original public expenditure White Paper, I think that the arrangement and timing of any such debate is best left to the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me again remind the House that this is an Opposition day, and that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debates on agriculture and fisheries. I ask hon. Members to confine their questions to next week's business rather than raising more general matters, and to speak briefly.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend pay some attention next week to the results of the first two sittings of the European Standing Committees? He has promised to review them at the end of the year, but other matters have arisen relating not to procedure but to the workings of the Committees—papers have not been available, for instance, and it is felt that not enough time was provided. It would be very helpful if my right hon. Friend referred to a letter that he will have received from the Chairmen of the first two Committees, and decided whether it would be possible to deal with those criticisms as soon as possible.

Mr. MacGregor: I said last week that, given that the European Standing Committees are a new experiment, teething troubles would be likely, as well as the need for a review at the end of the summer. I am therefore prepared to consider issues that arise in the early stages.
I have seen the letter that my hon. Friend mentioned, and will respond. I am considering the points raised in it. The Standing Committees will not be sitting next week, partly to ensure that we can make all the papers available. I cannot guarantee that that will always be possible, however, because they frequently arrive fairly late from the European Community. Certainly I am anxious to do all that I can to make the new experiment a success.

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the evacuation of the Tartan Alpha platform earlier this week, which is a


reminder of the fact that working in the offshore oil industry is still a very hazardous occupation. Can he assure us that not much more dust will gather on the Cullen report before the House has an opportunity to debate it?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have accepted all Lord Cullen's recommendations and conclusions, and are acting to implement as many as possible with all practicable speed. I am sorry that we have not so far been able to find an opportunity to debate the matter. As is clear from the number of important issues that hon. Members are raising, it is difficult to fit them all in, but I still intend to arrange a debate on this topic as soon as I can.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: As the Government have now become deeply embroiled in the aviation dispute with the United States stemming from the application of United Airlines of the USA to take over the Pan Am routes, should not the Secretary of State for Transport report next week on the current state of the negotiations? Would it not be a good idea for him also to mention that some of us are becoming rather tired of the nonsense whereby Governments intervene in decisions relating to the level of transatlantic air fares? We feel that such decisions should be left to the marketplace, and should relate to what the airlines believe they can charge, subject only to predatory action.

Mr. MacGregor: I am bearing in mind what you said, Mr. Speaker, about the anxiety of many hon. Members to speak in the following important debate. I shall therefore confine myself to procedural points and will not deal with any policy points raised by my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member.
We must consider when it would be appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to inform the House of the state of the negotiations, and I shall discuss that with him in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Tony Benn:: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when I asked last week about Government statements on the Gulf, he assured us that such statements would be made as necessary? This week there have been the horrific casualties in Baghdad and the British Government's decision to try to make the Security Council meet in secret so as to stifle criticism of what is happening. There have also been crucial discussions in America, in which the Secretary of State for Defence took part, about the timing of the land war, which might lead to many casualties among British troops.
Is it not clear that the Government do not wish the House to discuss these matters? Were it not for the fact that the Scottish National party has tabled a motion this week, is it not clear that the Government would have had no intention of involving Parliament in something that concerns the lives of many thousands of people, including our own troops and their anxious families waiting at home?

Mr. MacGregor: No, that is not the case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were questions to the Foreign Secretary yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I review regularly when there should be a

debate or a statement. Certainly we are open to representations from Members in all parts of the House about that. I welcome next week's debate, which will give the House another opportunity to discuss these matters. I shall continue to review carefully when further statements should be made.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as bizarre that British correspondents and cameramen are in the very heartland of enemy territory pumping back information which is almost wholly in favour of Saddam Hussein and his evil intents? Does he not think that we ought to address that matter next week?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members generally, as well as members of the public, feel strongly about that issue. Representations have been made to the broadcasting authorities along those lines. That, of course, is a matter that can be raised in next week's debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not extraordinary that, in the week that is to follow the announcement of the awful unemployment figures, there is to be neither a debate nor any other opportunity to discuss the catastrophic effect that unemployment is having on the lives of our constituents? Does the Minister not realise that, while he and his colleagues have their jobs, those of everyone else are at risk?

Mr. MacGregor: We had a full debate on the economy yesterday.

Mr. John Marshall: When does my right hon. Friend expect to reintroduce the War Crimes Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a precise date, but we have given a clear commitment to do so.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Notwithstanding the fact that later today there is to be a debate on the fishing industry, can the Leader of the House assure us that the prayer which has been tabled against Statutory Instrument 139 will be debated in the near future, given that four Opposition parties have tabled prayers against the statutory instrument and that amendments to the statutory instrument have been tabled before we have even discussed it?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to give an absolute assurance now; we must see how today's debate goes. However, I shall certainly consider the matter after the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ensure that next week the Secretary of State makes a statement on the new evidence that has emerged about the imprisonment of four Ulster Defence Regiment members who are serving time in Armagh prison for murder? Will he draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has been engaged in forensic tests of the so-called confessions, has now got the results of those confessions but will not release them? Will he ensure that the results of the forensic tests are released?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will remember that yesterday I asked whether a statement would be made today on that very subject. In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier comment—that there should be debates in which Northern Ireland Members of Parliament could participate—he ought to bear in mind that this is the only place where representatives of Northern Ireland can deal with such issues. Should there not be a statement next week on an issue that affects servants of the Crown?

Mr. MacGregor: I note that the hon. Gentleman has also raised this point. I can only repeat that I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 459 on the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and on the British textile industry?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to press for the early re-opening of the GATT talks; and calls upon them to recognise the vital importance of the British textile industries, both regionally and nationally, which will be undermined unless there is an orderly transitional period of at least 10 years into the new system of international trade which must include effective anti-dumping measures.]
I am sure that he is aware of the great importance of the industry to many areas of the country, not least to my own constituency. May we have a fairly lengthy debate on those matters in the very near future?

Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am also well aware of its importance. On the GATT talks, informal discussions are taking place under the auspices of the GATT director-general and they are continuing with a view to restarting formal negotiations as soon as possible. We must see exactly how they develop. I will bear in mind the point about a debate. However, I must stress that we have a heavy programme. Many subjects for debate have been raised and it will not be possible to accommodate them all.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is Mr. Bill Pinkney going to buy the transport section of the Crown Suppliers? I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add at this stage to what I said last week.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend arrange to have a debate very soon on the "Options for Change" in the defence review? May we discuss especially the facilities for training for our armed services? It has been demonstrated in the Gulf conflict how good our training has been. Hon. Members of all parties would like to express their views on many of the facilities in West Germany that are now to be withdrawn or that are under threat in constituencies such as mine—I refer to the Portland naval base in south Dorset.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we have normal arrangements for debates on defence matters and

for services days. I cannot give a date now for when those debates will be, but that will, of course, be an opportunity to raise the points that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of early-day motion 468, may we have from next week more regular ministerial statements if necessary daily, about the conduct of the Gulf war?
[That this House condemns the barbaric slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Baghdad, which was caused by bombing.]
When was the last time that a British Government were collectively responsible for the massacre of 500 innocent civilians and then sought refuge in a secret session of the United Nations Security Council in an effort to avoid adverse publicity and public scrutiny? Will the Leader of the House next recommend secret sessions of Parliament in case the public find out the truth about that senseless and destructive conflict?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered questions on large parts of those points.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern that the Iraqi embassy may have been storing arms and ammunition, and that some of Iraq's friends may be coming into the country with arms and ammunition in the diplomatic bag? As there is a legal right under the Vienna convention to go into the premises of a former mission and inspect it, and to inspect electronically the diplomatic bag, will my right hon. Friend invite the Foreign Secretary to come to the House next week to reassure us by making a statement that in no circumstances will any embassy or any ambassador's staff be allowed to bring into the country, or to store, arms and ammunition that might be used for terrorist purposes in Britain?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. and learned Friend knows of action that has already been taken in many ways in relation to the embassy here. I will discuss his point with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Tom Cox: We are to have a debate next week on the Criminal Justice Bill. Is the Leader of the House aware of the utter revulsion of hon. Members of all parties and of the general public about a decision by the Court of Appeal this week to free two people who had been convicted of brutality towards a young child that led to that child's death? They were released because of a loophole in the law. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary to ensure that no other child abusers who are now in prison will use the same legal loophole to get their freedom as that used by the two who have just been released?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not had a chance to study that case in full to see whether it points to a gap in the law, although, on the face of it, it looks as though it may not do so. We are to devote two days to the Criminal Justice Bill—one day next week and the following Monday—because of the importance of that Bill and the numerous issues to which it gives rise. I hope that during those two days it will be possible to deal with all aspects of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate point, and I cannot say now whether there is a case for a statement to be made or for action to be taken.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Surely it is extraordinary that we should not be given a full day's debate in Government time at a time when we have huge forces committed in the Gulf and serious matters that need to be discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and on which strong views are held. Above all, will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the Government's apathy over the reaction of our constituents to the grotesquely disloyal reporting of the war by ITN and the BBC needs airing in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: On the latter point, I said earlier that representations had been made to the broadcasting authorities and some of my right hon. Friends have made clear the views that have been expressed to us. I very much share the thinking behind my hon. Friend's point. I am prepared to look for an appropriate opportunity for another full day's debate. We are to have a half day's debate next week, and I am certainly prepared to continue to examine the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary be making a statement tomorrow on the Security Council meeting? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the British delegates called for the meeting to be held in secret? Can he also tell us what plans are being made for humanitarian aid to be given to hospitals in Kuwait and Iraq, bearing in mind the fact that many of them are without electricity, water and medical supplies? Who will speak on Thursday on the Government's behalf about the war aims, given that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the war aims of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary are contradictory?

Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely all the hon. Gentleman's points about policy. I cannot say whether there will be a statement tomorrow, as we judge these matters by the day.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: As my right hon. Friend seemed to suggest that a saint's day was the right day for a debate on Welsh affairs, may I suggest that he carries that precedent further and makes the other United Kingdom saints' days days for debates on the affairs of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England?

Mr. MacGregor: We have other opportunities to discuss the affairs of each of the other home territories. My hon. Friend has made an ingenious suggestion, but, given the many other demands on our time, I am not sure that I can give him an absolute guarantee that I shall entertain the idea.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the dramatically worsening unemployment figures that are hitting Wales—and probably the regions of England—is it not time that we had a statement and a debate on regional policy, especially in the light of the changes taking place in the European Community and the development of relationships between the regions and EC institutions? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made at an early date and for a debate as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: We have recently had rather a lot of debates on economic and industrial matters, and they affect regional affairs. I have already told the House that we are to have another debate on public expenditure and

that will clearly also involve the discussion of regional affairs. There will also be an opportunity for such discussion in the debate next Wednesday.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Given the events of last week and the IRA attack on Downing street, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether a review has yet been undertaken of the security of this House and the other place? Could any news of that be given to us next week?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed. Fairly regular reviews take place and the House will know that, some time ago, a considerable number of extra steps were taken to tighten security. Some of them are fairly open and manifest and obvious to hon. Members. It is perhaps not best practice to refer to all the measures that have been taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a considerable programme of further measures—on top of all that we had before—has been undertaken.

Ms. Diane Abbott:: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people, both pro and anti the Gulf war, believe that the time given in this Parliament to open discussion of the war compares unfavourably with the United States Congress and its committee system? Will he make time for a full debate on the United Nations? Some of us believe that the role of the United Nations in this war could bear examination and that the use of the United Nations to front the military mobilisation is a perversion of the United Nations' aims.
Will the right hon. Gentleman note that, whereas the Prime Minister constantly uses resolution 678 to justify an invasion of Iraq, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who ought to know, when challenged, says that he cannot say whether an invasion of Iraq would be in line with the resolutions? If the Secretary-General of the United Nations does not know, how can the Prime Minister be so sure?

Mr. MacGregror: The hon. Lady's question raises matters of policy, not procedure. On procedural matters, I have not yet seen the motion for next Thursday's debate, but it would seem from the title that some of the matters to which she referred could be raised then.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the policies of the Labour Lambeth council, which seems to want deliberately to cause homelessness? First, it has yet to issue planning permission for a major hostel project into which millions of pounds of Government money have been put. Secondly, over a long period it has denied housing benefits which are due to existing hostels, thereby putting the hostels' existence in jeopardy. If that is a policy of seeking to cause homelessness, we should know it.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend raises briefly some important points. I hope that he will find opportunities to raise them further in the House because I agree that they are important. However, I cannot promise him a debate in Government time next week.

Mr. David Trimble: In view of comments made during Northern Ireland questions this afternoon, which made it fairly clear that the so-called initiative of the Secretary of State is about, in his words, to arrive at a conclusion, will the Leader of the House agree that there


is no excuse for not giving effect to the views of the Procedure Committee on the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that it is wrong for a Department to be allowed to block the creation of a Select Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that I could not be present during questions, so I do not know what was said. I have no further progress to report on the Committee.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this month is the 50th anniversary of the Air Training Corps and that many thousands of young men serving in the Gulf with the Royal Air Force are former members of it? Is he aware that there are 36,000 young boys and girls in the corps? May we have an early opportunity to debate the fact that young people in Britain have come forward during the past 50 years to volunteer to serve Crown and country?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to pay my tribute to the work of the corps and all those who have served in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make his point even more fully in our debates on the armed services.

Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a debate on Thames Water and the failure of privatisation? I think, for example, of the failure to restore water supplies in St. Stephen's house, where many staff are having to work in virtually insanitary conditions. May we have an early debate, or at least some action on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the note sent to the occupants of St. Stephen's house. He will realise that there are difficulties at present with the water supply in central London. I do not see that it is possible to have a debate.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Surely we need to have a debate on the disastrous state of the GATT talks as soon as possible. Is my right hon. Friend aware that import controls, which now cover a range of products, from steel to cars and food to shoes, cost the average British family more than the poll tax? Therefore, should we not pay more attention to the issues in the House, especially bearing in mind our position as one of the major trading nations?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government greatly regretted the suspension of the GATT negotiations in December. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the valuable progress which has been made up to that point is not lost. I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter. The need to reach a conclusion to the GATT round is very important.
There is a difficulty about holding a debate as we need to know at what time it would be right to have the issue raised again in the House. We need to know what progress has been made and to hold the debate at a time that is appropriate in that context.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 449?
[That this House welcomes the mission to Iraq being jointly organised by the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Health Organisation for the delivery of emergency medical supplies for children and mothers and, more generally, to assess health needs; believes this mission to be firmly within the spirit of the provisions of the Geneva

Convention of 1949, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of the World Summit for Children which states that 'the essential needs of children and families must be protected even in times of war and in violence-ridden areas' and goes on to ask that 'periods of tranquility and special relief corridors be observed for the benefit of children, where war and violence are still taking place'; recognises the high proportion of young children in the Iraqi population; and further hopes that once the mission has visited Baghdad it will make every effort to inspect the conditions of children and mothers in other centres of war, including Basra and Kuwait.]
This week UNICEF and the World Health Organisation are taking medical supplies to Baghdad for women and children and they will be examining health conditions in Iraq. Given the bombing that took place yesterday and the horrendous scenes we have been shown from Baghdad, would it not be particularly appropriate for us to discuss the subject?

Mr. MacGregor: We welcome the proposal to send a World Health Organisation and UNICEF mission to Iraq to deliver emergency medical supplies. Experience from similar ICRC—International Committee of the Red Cross—missions shows that satisfactory arrangements can be made for such missions without organising pauses in hostilities or relief corridors. This is another issue that could be raised next week.

Mr. David Wilshire: I urge my right hon. Friend to find time next week to debate early-day motion 448.
[That this House notes with great concern the establishment of a secret society within the Parliamentary Labour Party called The Supper Club; notes that its objectives appear to be distancing Front Bench spokesmen from official Opposition policy, campaigning for a new leader for the party, undermining support for British troops in the Gulf and weakening the authority of United Nations resolutions; and calls for an early debate so that club members can clarify their policies and their preferences for a new leader.]
Conservative Members would find a debate absolutely riveting because the motion, which stands in my name, concerns the revelation of the existence of the parliamentary Labour party's supper club.
The need for a debate is urgent and serious for two reasons. First, we discovered yesterday that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen do not have any economic policies, so if we had a debate next week it might enable the supper club to tell us its economic policies. Secondly, the matter is urgent because it appears that the club is planning to change the leader of the Labour party and we would like to know its candidates.

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion, but my hon. Friend will know that I have no responsibility for the matters referred to therein. It was certainly noticeable in the debate yesterday that there was a total absence of any Labour policies for the future, and I believe that that will become clear in other debates as well.

Mr. William McKelvey: I am sure that the Leader of the House, who keeps a keen eye on such matters, has seen that I have tabled a ten-minute Bill for consideration next week. The object of


the Bill is to extract additional money for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman support the Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: Since the hon. Gentleman knows that I have no further progress to report on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and as I have not studied his Bill in detail, it is unlikely that I would want to support it next week. I have already made clear the position in relation to the Select Committee.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Will he ensure that, as urgently as possible, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary make a statement to the House on the horrific civilian casualties now occurring in Iraq and what plans they have to negotiate a ceasefire so that the carnage that has been wrought upon the people of Iraq and Kuwait can come to an end? That would mean that all the problems of the region, none of which will be solved by the war, can be addressed in a peaceful, political way rather than with the barbarism that is being used in the region now.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); but I also know that there are not many other hon. Members who do so.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on railway transport and, in particular, the Department of Transport's guidelines that require British Rail to lengthen a large number of station platforms, without any additional money, to conform with the new rolling stock that has been introduced? That is causing British Rail and the travelling public great concern, because in west Yorkshire, for example, many believe that small useful stations will be closed on health and safety grounds when the real reason is that the Government are forcing cuts on British Rail. This would be a useful subject for debate, because it is important that we have an expanding rail network and not one that is continually circumscribed by Government cuts.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. British Rail is expanding in terms of investment and rolling stock; there are not cuts. British Rail's investment is at the highest level in real terms for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned additional rolling stock. Since 1983, Ministers have approved about £1·8 billion of investment in passenger rolling stock and nearly £400 million in locomotives. So that there is much investment, and the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls. However, if he wishes to raise particular local points, he knows that other means are available for him to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bring forward next week an up-to-date statement on the efforts of the Government to cadge money from other Governments in order to prosecute the Gulf war? If the Irish nationalists are condemned for raising money in America in order to carry out their wishes regarding Irish nationalism, what is the difference between that and the

British and American Governments running around the world touting for money for this American-led mercenary war?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is the world of difference. The conflict in Iraq is being undertaken under the auspices of a United Nations resolution, and a large number of Governments are participating. The position is totally different. On the issue that he raised about a statement next week, I suggest that he reads yesterday's debate where he will see that the matter was referred to in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Leader of the House mentioned that there would be opposed private business on Monday between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, as though it had nothing to do with him or the Government and was purely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. If that is so—the measure concerned is the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the existence of a document, a copy of which I have seen, from the Government Chief Whip instructing all Ministers to be present for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the business which follows it, and telling them also to procure the presence of their Parliamentary Private Secretaries? How does he reconcile that with the reply that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in respect of Government whipping on the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill on 5 February, when he said that individual members of the Cabinet vote according to their individual wishes?
Does the Leader of the House agree that the documentary evidence we have shows clearly that private Bills are being passed through the House under the flag of convenience and that they are, in fact, Government measures? Will he agree to refer the matter to the Select Committee on procedure?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whipping is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

BILL PRESENTED

COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE

Mrs. Margaret Ewing, supported by Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Jim Sillars and Mr. Dick Douglas, presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and order to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered.

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Income Tax (Building Societies) (Annual Payments) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Opposition Day

6TH ALLOTTED DAY

Agriculture

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches in a half-day debate, but it would be helpful if hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 10 minutes and if the Front-Bench spokesmen, of whom there will be four, exercised a self-denying ordinance on the length of their speeches.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move.
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for presiding over a crisis in agriculture which has seen 6,000 farmers leave the industry in 1990, real farm incomes fall to their lowest level since the Second World War and farmers' debt increase by £400 million in two years; believes that this crisis already threatens the social and economic structure of rural areas and the livelihoods of many farmers; regrets proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy; arid calls on Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals to protect the agricultural industry by moving support from overproduction to direct support aimed at social and environmental goals by the introduction of countryside management agreements across the country, by enhanced payments for achieving environmental aims, in particular extensification of food production, by marketing initiatives, and by reformed systems of direct support targeted in particular on family farms.
We are debating a serious issue. The purpose of our calling the debate is to try to restore confidence in an ailing agricultural industry. I forewarn the Minister that I will not attack him personally. I hope that during the debate I shall be able to advise him a little, from my farming experience, on the mistakes that his party and his Government have made over the last 12 years. It is to be hoped that the introduction of our 10-point policy, which I trust that the Minister has read, will enable us to go forward and improve the nation's agricultural industry.
I have had the pleasure of representing a rural constituency in west Wales for the last 17 years. The majority of my constituents are self-employed farmers, many of them on small family farms. I hope to have the pleasure of continuing to do what I can to help them for many years to come.
Never during the past 50 years has the future looked so bleak for British farming, an industry which has rightly prided itself on its efficiency. It is sufering from a crushing loss of confidence that has driven, and is continuing to drive, many farmers from the land. Over 6,000 workers, 4,000 of them full-time, left the land last year. How many more will leave the land this and next year? Let us hope that something can be done in the short term to stop the decline.
Unfortunately, farmers' debt amounted last year to £7 billion, compared with £3 billion at the beginning of the 1980s. Interest alone is now costing the industry £1 billion annually. The high interest rates that have prevailed for the last couple of years have caused increasing problems to an already overstretched industry. The reduction


announced yesterday has come too late for many and is too little to save many hundreds of others from financial ruin in the next few months.
Let us make no mistake about the fact that all farmers are suffering in the current situation, including the large farmers of East Anglia, the dairy farmers of Devon and the south of England and the hill farmers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But those who stand to lose the most are the smaller family farmers, of whom there are many in every part of Britain.
When I refer to family farms, I am speaking of farms that are looked after by the husband and wife and perhaps son and daughter, all earning a living from their parcel of land. It is important to do all that we can to preserve that type of farming, of whose record we should be proud. The livestock producers, the descendants of farmers who toiled on upland farms in the less-favoured areas over the centuries, have helped to weave the fabric of rural Britain, of which we are proud.
Some may ask why, in a time of recession, agriculture should be picked out for special treatment. We Liberal Democrats believe that agriculture has a vital role to play in the United Kingdom economy and in maintaining the structure of rural Britain. It deserves support as an efficient industry which has increased production, until today we are 75 per cent. self-sufficient in food. We must maintain a thriving agriculture so that we can carry on producing high-quality, reasonably priced food for the consumer. We also need the farmer as the guardian of the countryside, a responsibility which he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, faced with the present crisis, we in rural Wales are concerned not just with agriculture directly but with the whole of the rural economy? Village life depends on the farms that are under threat. If farming goes, the whole infrastructure of large areas will disappear.

Mr. Howells: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency similar to mine and encounters problems similar to those that I encounter. I am sure that the Government will take heed. We need the farmer as the guardian of our countryside—a responsibility which, as I have said, he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.
Last, but not least, we recognise that if our rural communities are to survive, the farmer, his or her family and related industries and services must be encouraged to stay in the countryside. That may be difficult at times, but we have to do our best. A Conservative Member shakes his head. I wonder whether he is against such a policy.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crofters and farmers of the islands, particularly the Scottish islands, contribute to the local community and are very valuable to the countryside? The agricultural development programme that was instituted for the islands was very welcome, but people now find that they are unable to keep up their payments, and we shall have to seek an extension. Many of these people are too proud to ask for help. This is the sort of thing that makes life very difficult for the farmers of the islands.

Mr. Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who cares so deeply about her people in Scotland. As I have told her many times, I refer to her as "Miss Scotland". I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of what she has just said. We need the part-time farmers and crofters in many parts of Scotland. [Interruption.] I am sure that she is proud to be called "Miss Scotland"—if only because of the record of her father, who played so often for Scotland.
We must not leave the industry at the mercy of naked market forces, as the Government seem intent on doing. They are willing to allow free market forces to take over completely, and quite content to allow the structures that have been developed since the second world war to encourage British farming to wither away.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My hon. Friend has just mentioned the Government's willingness to allow market forces to run riot. I know that he is aware that the Government seem willing to allow that in relation to agricultural tenancies, too. Does he agree that the policy that the Government have offered in their recent consultation paper—that agricultural holdings should be subject only to negotiation in the free market—is unrealistic? Bearing in mind the inequality of bargaining power between a young applicant for a tenancy and an experienced land agent, does he agree that a free market in tenancies is likely to wreck the strength of the agricultural rented sector? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to ensure that there is a reasonable supply of farm tenancies is to give fiscal incentives to both landlords and tenants?

Mr. Howells: That is my hon. Friend's speech done. As a poor hill farmer, I must listen to my colleagues at length. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will advise the Government. If my memory serves me well, he has until 31 March to express his views. I am sure that he has already drafted something and that it is on the way to the Minister. The point that he has just made is very valid and constructive.
Our parents and grandparents saw unfettered market forces in action in the 1920s and 1930s. At that time there was even greater desertion of the land. Rural communities were dispersed, and the production and distribution of food were inefficient and inadequate.
During their 12 years in office, the Government have signally failed to provide the necessary encouragement for an industry which surely deserves better. Therefore, they are failing not only the farmers, but the consumers and rural community of which farmers form the backbone.
I shall give a little bit of advice and a little history lesson to the Minister. I do not think that he was here in 1973—[Interruption.] He indicates that he was here then. Just to remind him—the Tory Government of 1973 decided to do away with the deficiency system for beef cattle. Within 12 months, the beef industry had hit rock bottom, calves were left at the market throughout the country and could not be sold. We could not sell our beef cattle.
In 1974, I was elected to the House. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the late Fred Peart made a wonderful job of saving the beef industry in that year. It was a lesson for every one of us, and makes me wonder whether the agricultural industry of Britain will survive in a free market economy without safeguards for the produce of this country.
I listened to the Minister with interest at the annual meeting—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He spoke well.

Mr. Howells: He spoke quite well, but he made a point about the future of the milk marketing boards about which I am a little worried and perturbed. I remember the days before the war when we had a free market economy. During the past 50 years, the forefathers of hon. Members on both sides of the House have fought hard to establish the milk marketing boards. It all started in Cardiganshire in west Wales in the early 1930s. During the past 50 years, the boards have served producers well and dairy farmers are still farming in every part of Britain.
I do not think that the Minister was responsible although I may be wrong, when the Government decided in 1988 to do away with the guaranteed price for wool. This year, the farmers will be paid that guaranteed price of between £1·15 and £1·25 per kilo, but next year they will not have the guaranteed price, and our sheep and wool producers will lose about £30 million next year because the Government have done away with the financial agreement.
The decision was taken unilaterally and had nothing to do with the European Community. It was a Government decision and a big mistake. On behalf of the sheep producers of this country, I say—I am sure that hon. Members will agree—that we should bring pressure to bear on the Government to reintroduce that financial agreement for another five-year period until we are out of our present crisis. If the will is there—I hope it is—that can be done.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the critical position facing family farms throughout the United Kingdom. To go back to his history lesson, do farmers in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agree with the view expressed to me by many farmers in Scotland, that agriculture always does better under a Labour Government? Would he like to speculate on why so many of them persist in voting Conservative?

Mr. Howells: I will not follow that line, but I will say that most farmers in Britain will vote for us next time, because we have a good policy to help them out of this crisis.
The Government made a big mistake in the early 1980s when they persuaded our farmers to expand, to spend more, to invest more and to produce more. That continued for four or five years. I respect the Minister's views, but now, five years later, he is trying to persuade farmers to produce less. I honestly believe that the Tory party has misled and mismanaged agriculture during the past 12 years—

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Going back to an earlier passage in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the milk marketing board, is the House to understand that he is advocating the retention of the board with no change in it? If so, can he explain how he reconciles that with the requirements of the European Community, which I believe his party supports?

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know from speaking to dairy farmers in his constituency—I spoke to many of them at their annual general meeting

this week—that more than 90 per cent. of them favour holding on to the milk marketing board with its present statutory powers. That is food for thought for the Minister. Given the will to do so, he may be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to keep the present system.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on these matters, but I wonder whether he will help me. At present, 35 per cent. of the milk sold in this country is of the skimmed or semi-skimmed variety, which does not come under the present marketing arrangements. There is also the problem that the movement towards standardised milk will have serious effects on those arrangements; and there is the further problem that this country has so far not been able to produce the quality of product at the top end of the market, so, even though we are less than fully supplied with milk, we are producing milk for intervention products such as butter.
All three aspects mean that, as the milk marketing board has itself said, the board should start thinking of moving towards a voluntary co-operative. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his views that somehow we can stay exactly as we are?

Mr. Howells: I advised the Minister a few minutes ago that the Government made a big mistake with one of our statutory boards—the British Wool Marketing Board—in 1988. He should not make a similar mistake in 1992. We have learnt the lesson the hard way, so I hope that the Minister will not let our dairy farmers down after 50 years of stability.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the milk marketing board is under threat from the views of the Dairy Trade Federation, and that it is having to bend to the federation's views? Other Ministers have protected the milk marketing board's position in the past and this Minister is duty bound to do the same now.

Mr. Howells: My hon. Friend's views are always sound; but I must add that I shall not give way any more today.
One of the problems is that there has been no consistent agriculture policy; instead, there have been sudden switches of tactics which cannot entirely be blamed on the Government. In the early 1980s, the cry was for increased production—and as fast as possible. Farmers were urged to invest in equipment and buildings, and then suddenly there were cuts and quotas. Little wonder, then, that agriculture has been so unnerved. From one year to the next, farmers have to change their plans and have little opportunity to form long-term strategies or to invest sensibly. They must be given the chance to plan ahead.
The Minister is right to criticise the current MacSharry proposals, but he is wrong to lay the blame for all the industry's ills at the door of the common agricultural policy. The Minister has so few positive proposals that we wish to make some constructive suggestions of our own. The industry would benefit from a 10-year strategy aimed at assisting farmers during transition. It would encourage them not to resist inevitable changes and would ensure that they compete on equal terms with other European farmers.
We have a 10-point plan and some of the points are especially relevant. First, we have said that resources must


be switched from supporting over-production to direct support for farm incomes, and that payments must be specially targeted on medium and small family farms. Secondly, as agriculture underpins the social fabric of rural Britain, it follows that direct support must concentrate on social as well as environmental objectives. Thirdly, the future of the European family farm should not be sacrificed in any attempt to bring the GATT negotiations to a conclusion. If a reduction in some support for agriculture can be justified, it must be gradual and sensibly phased.
We say that less-favoured areas and environmentally sensitive areas should be extended, and the system used to sustain local farming communities and to encourage environmentally friendly farming and the preservation of the countryside. In case some Conservative Members think that this attack on the Government is only by Liberal Democrats, let us hear the view of the National Farmers Union. I am delighted to see that the new president of the NFU, David Naish, is here listening to the debate. I wish him well in his new office and thank the ex-president, Sir Simon Gourlay, for the services that he rendered to British agriculture.
According to the NFU the MacSharry proposals strongly discriminate against British farmers. The NFU states:
Although rebuffed on first outing by Council of Ministers, these proposals are likely to come back in some form in some very tough EC price proposals due to be announced soon".
The NFU says that the
Minister be left in no doubt that he must not come back from Brussels without having removed the discriminatory aspects of the package.
It says that the cut in interest rates is welcome, but that there is a pressing need for the Government to go further, and soon. It states:
Unless urgent action taken soon we shall see the demise of the small family farmer in British agriculture, together with his role in the rural community and management of the countryside.
The Farmers Union of Wales states that it
recognises the threat to Welsh agriculture of a revised CAP favouring the 'Allotment' farmers of Europe".
The Minister understands that quotation. The FUW continues:
however it is undeniable that 80 per cent. of EEC support goes to 20 per cent. of farmers—and that 60 per cent. of farm support does not get through to the farming community"—
that is most important—
Preliminary estimates suggest that this waste—the proportion of consumer and taxpayer expenditure on current farm support which does not get through to farmers—is about 60 per cent. on average. While public dissatisfaction with the growth in this spending is almost all directed to agriculture only some 40 per cent. is actually benefiting farmers.
We are concerned that the Government are presiding over a gradual decline in agriculture. It has been starved of support and resources and, as a result, it is fighting for its future. I fear that it may already be too late to reverse that trend. Time is not on our side. We face the consequences of further cuts in support, the open market of 1992, and greater access to the European market by iron curtain countries. Urgent and effective action is needed to ensure that farming survives as an effective force. We hope that

this debate will make a turning point in public and Government perception of a once great industry, which came to the country's rescue in two world wars.
In the last century, a prominent Englishman, George Borrow, travelled through Wales, from north to south—and his book, in which he describes his experiences, is very interesting. When he came to my area of mid-Wales, he wrote:
This is an area where crows will die and men will live.
I hope that the day will never come when only crows will live in mid-Wales, and there will be no men there to farm the hills and uplands.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to negotiate in Brussels so as to secure changes to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community which make it more market-oriented, thereby giving an incentive to efficiency, reduce surpluses, thereby lessening tensions in international trade, keeping spending within the agricultural guideline, avoid discrimination against United Kingdom interests, and integrate environmental considerations more firmly into the Policy; and recognises that such a stance is necessary to take proper account of the interests of taxpayers and consumers while offering a realistic prospect of a successful future for British farming.".
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) for the courteous way in which he moved his motion, and for reminding the House that he and I have, on a number of occasions, fought side by side when we have found ourselves at odds with the majority of the Opposition—not least, when the hon. Gentleman bravely supported the Government's efforts to back the safety of British beef, when it was so deeply undermined by the official Opposition. If I am critical of the views held by the hon. Gentleman's party, I hope that he will not take my remarks personally.
The hon. Gentleman described, quite rightly, the serious position of agriculture throughout the European Community and emphasised the problems of the United Kingdom in general—and of the Principality and his own constituency in particular. However, perhaps it would have been more sensible for the hon. Gentleman to begin by admitting that, as more than 80 per cent. of spending on agriculture comes from decisions made in Brussels, the nature, future and activity of the common agricultural policy is central to what happens. If one examines only that amount being spent by the British Government, one sees that the figure has risen constantly. The argument that agriculture is starved of funds comes oddly from the hon. Gentleman, who knows that only this week I announced another £17·5 million for the poorest farmers in the most difficult areas—many of them in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency.
Although we share the hon. Gentleman's concern—and I hope that no one doubts my personal commitment to the role of the farmer as the custodian of the countryside, as well as a producer of food, and belief that it would be wrong to take the present period of plenty as necessarily the pattern for the future, and therefore that it is absolutely necessary to maintain our ability to produce food at home and to have farmers and farm land available for that purpose—the hon. Gentleman did not seem


prepared to face up to the real choices and problems that confront us. He prefers merely to state the problem, without proposing any solution.
I invite the House to examine the motion carefully. It states that the Liberal Democratic party
regrets proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy".
I am glad that the Liberal Democrats are not representing this country, if all that they could say to Mr. MacSharry is, "We regret what you are doing." If that had been clone, Mr. MacSharry would be doing it still. There would have been no possibility of getting the group of nations and strength of feeling behind the United Kingdom that we did, if all we had said about Mr. MacSharry's proposals was that we regretted them. To regret would have been to allow to pass.
We start by saying that we oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals. We hate them. We condemn them. We do so in the terms expressed in a letter to The Times from the editor of a farm newspaper. He needed to write to The Times because that newspaper is not always clear about the needs of British farming. That correspondent asked why is it acceptable to put the farmer in Dyfed—perhaps the farmer in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—out of business because he has 50 cows, but to keep the farmer in Sligo in business because he has 40 cows. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North must accept that the MacSharry proposals are extremely damaging to European farming generally, and especially damaging to British farming—and to Welsh farming in particular.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening, because I said that I supported him for opposing the MacSharry proposals—but that whether it be in six months' or 12 months' time, Mr. MacSharry's proposals will have to be accepted by the British Government, even though I hope that they can be amended.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No!

Mr. Howells: The hon. Lady can shout as much as she likes, but if the Minister is not in favour of the MacSharry principle, or of the amended version within the next two years, I am certain that he will not have an alternative policy. Perhaps the Minister will say what are his alternative policies.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make it clear in agricultural constituencies throughout the country that it is the Liberal Democrats' official policy to accept the inevitability of Mr. MacSharry's proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I base that not only on the hon. Gentleman's remarks but on the Liberal Democrats' proposals in the document "A Thriving Countryside", which I read most carefully. 1t is a better document than that which I had cause to discuss with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which promoted, among other things, a national statutory pig-weaning period. Such was the nature of the proposals that we once received from the Social Democrats.
Those who carefully record the signatories to Opposition motions will have noted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not a signatory to today's motion. I suspect that is because he, and others who have not put their names to the motion know of the deep division among Liberal Democrats

between those in the countryside, who want to appear that they are in favour of a continuation of the present system, and those in the towns, who want to suggest to the taxpayers that there are great sums of money to be saved.
I am not in favour of the proposition that one can have a free market in agricultural products. How can one use that argument when, in the first place, the market would not be free? The United States is a major supporter of its agricultural producers. Japan, the world's other large exporter and a major proponent of better trade, is not prepared to do anything about the fact that it is an even bigger supporter of its agricultural producers than we in the European community. It would be entirely wrong to suggest that anyone is proposing a free market. What Conservative Members are saying is that, if our farmers are to be given a chance to compete, blocks must not be placed in their way.
Let me take head on, as it were, the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the Milk Marketing Board. I remind the House that he said neither that he was in favour of its reform nor that he was against it. That position is reflected in the answers given by Liberal Democrats from platforms all over the country: when it is convenient, they will say that they are in favour, and when it is inconvenient they will say the opposite.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I wish to finish what I have to say: it is of crucial importance.
Who has suggested the reform of the Milk Marketing Board? The board itself. Why? Because it believes that, to defend the producer's interest, it must face the present reality. I am all for a history lesson, but I know of no other industry that would consider it sensible to argue that what was good 60 years ago must inevitably be good now. Such a proposition demands a certain amount of questioning. After all, 60 years ago we had a closed milk market: people were not importing milk or milk products to any significant extent, and if they had we could have stopped them. Today, we have a free market, and we must ask ourselves, "Can the British producer expect a fair deal within the present structure?"
The Milk Marketing Board has said that it fears that that will not be possible. For several years, the British milk producer has received less for his milk than any other producer in the European Community, while the consumer has paid more for her milk than any other consumer in the Community. Ideal though it was in earlier circumstances, the Milk Marketing Board must be changed to suit the consumer.
Let me make a commitment to the hon. Gentleman. M y concern is to ensure that the producer can obtain a fair return for his work, and I do not believe that the present system will enable him to compete effectively with those whose products will enter this country in the Common Market of 1992. The reason is clear. Three of the food-producing companies that have performed best over the past 10 years are producers of yoghurt; they are based in France, and are selling high value-added products on our market. I do not mind that—indeed, I am in favour of it—but I know of no similar British companies that are selling similar products on the French market, gaining for the British producer the margin that I wish him to have. I


want a system that will return to the industry the innovation that it has lost, and only a reform of the Milk Marketing Board will make that possible.

Mr. Geraint Howells: There is only one way to find out who is right and who is wrong. Will the Minister give the country's dairy producers an assurance that he will hold a referendum to establish what percentage of those dairy farmers are in favour of retaining the Milk Marketing Board with its present statutory powers?

Mr. Gummer: I can give a better assurance than that. I have told representatives of the industry that I want them to present their own propositions for their Milk Marketing Board, and I am now waiting for their answer.
Whatever happens, I have a duty to protect the ability of British milk producers to compete with others. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to comment, but no one will remember that he has said what he has said. Everyone will remember if I turn out to be the Minister of Agriculture who fails the country's milk producers. I am not going to do that, because I am committed to them, and that means that I must tell them plainly that 34 per cent. of today's liquid milk sales are outwith the scheme.
We cannot view the scheme as unchangeable, when the whole question of standardised milk is becoming central to the discussions in the Community. We cannot discuss the scheme as it is now without taking into account the terms under which the Community originally accepted it, and the dangers that it now holds as our liquid milk consumption falls. It is bilking the issue to cast general aspersions, and not to accept the Milk Marketing Board's own statement that it may well need to change if it is to do its job for the producer.
The hon. Gentleman bilks the issue in another respect. Having listened to the question asked by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), he remarked how valuable his hon. and learned Friend was, as a lawyer, and assured him that he would take heed of his requests relating to agricultural tenancies. Who has asked us to change the law on agricultural tenancies? It was not the landowners but, primarily, the young farmers, who said that they needed a change if they were to have an opportunity of acquiring tenancies. It is a curious Liberal approach to suggest that I should be condemned for issuing a public consultation document seeking to persuade the industry to face the realities.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who has now left us, said that he wanted us to continue statutory controls on tenancies. Perhaps the industry proposes such an arrangement in one way or another—and this is a consultation document—but I must ask whether a sensible tenancy system can be achieved if the system is cast in a way that encourages people to get around it with fake arrangements for share farming and special deals, all of them on a very short-term basis and most putting far more power into the hands of the landlords than the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggested would result from the kind of open system that is proposed in the consultation document.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has been waiting for a long time.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is not the point at issue in regard to both tenancies and the Milk Marketing Board our belief, as a party, in a demand-led rather than a command-led economy? The agricultural position in both western and eastern Europe shows where a command-led economy has taken us. The only apparent difference is that, whereas in the west the command economy has led to surpluses, in the east it has led to deficiencies. To that extent we are better off, but many of the problems affecting our agricultural system are caused by the fact that it is commanded by the state and by politicians, rather than being exposed to market forces.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I suggest that there is another connection between the two issues. In both cases the Liberal Democrats will say whatever suits their audience at the time. When it comes to discussing tenancies, they will do what they have been doing in every agricultural constituency in the country: they will say to those they think would like to have tenancies, "Yes, of course we want reform." They will say to those they think would not like the new tenancies, "We oppose them." Opposition Members do not want to intervene because that is an incontrovertible statement. The Liberal Democrats have 650 separate policies, one for each constituency. Those policies break up by ward when it comes to local government elections.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I must continue with my speech, in view of what Mr. Speaker said.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I must continue.

Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman ought to give way, because no Labour Member of Parliament has been allowed to intervene.

Mr. Gummer: We are debating the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I want to complete my reply to him.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I have already said that I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Gummer: I realise that some Labour Members of Parliament wish to speak in the debate, and I look forward to their contributions. I want the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to explain to British farmers why the Labour party supports Mr. MacSharry's policies. On 24 January the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) asked:
Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission


for the reform of the CAP … and of the Labour party, which are … virtually indistinguishable from those proposals?"—Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
I look forward to hearing how the Labour party intends to explain to British farmers why 99 per cent. of the cuts in the sheep market should affect the United Kingdom while the rest of the Community will suffer only a 1 per cent. cut.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Even someone as thick-skinned as I is well aware of the fact that the Minister does not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman must therefore resume his seat. The Minister has made his position quite clear.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Gummer: We are debating a Liberal Democrat motion. I want, therefore, to refer to the motion that is before the House.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never known a debate, albeit on the motion of a minority party, in which an Official Opposition Member of Parliament has not been allowed to intervene during a ministerial speech. The Official Opposition represents 220 constituencies. I represent a rural constituency.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. If the Minister is allowed to make progress, I am sure that I shall be able to call other Opposition Members.

Mr. Gummer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth pointing out that more Members of the Liberal Democrat party are in the Chamber at the moment than Members of the official Opposition—a fact which may be commented upon in many constituencies.
The positive part of the motion restates my words o the National Farmers Union the day before yesterday. That part of it which deals with the environment is largely a straight crib from Conservative Government policies, so I do not need to argue against them. I know that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agrees, because he did not refer to that in his speech. He knows that we agree with many of his proposals, although not all.
I do not agree with the suggestion that we should look after the countryside according to the diktat of local authority committees. I am not sure that farmers would want to manage their land according to the diktat of the chairman of the planning committee of Ceredigion district council. I suspect that farmers would prefer to have greater control over the future of the countryside which they created and which they manage.
I must refer to the desperate danger that is implicit in the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's motion, which reads:
and by reformed systems of direct support targeted in particular on family farms.
If we were to suggest that some farms in Britain are family farms and that other unspecified farms are not, we should be saying to Mr. MacSharry, "Your policies are absolutely right." Almost every farm in Britain is a family farm. Some family farms consist of husband and wife, son and daughter working one farm together. Others consist of father and son working two separate farms. On some farms, cousins, aunts and others play their part in running a family farm.
The danger with the MacSharry proposal is that a family farm with mother, father and three sons fully active is less of a family farm than one which is divided among four different families. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that, but if he suggests that there is such a distinction, his words will be used by our European Community foes in our negotiations on these matters.
The document "A Thriving Countryside"—rather ominously referred to as Federal Green Paper No. 18—refers constantly to small farms. If that were taken to mean that farms in Dyfed would receive special, uncovenanted extra support, the hon. Gentleman would be misleading the public. In Britain, there are no small farms, by European standards. There may be sufficient small farms to count as one vote for each Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, but that is about all. For his own electoral good, the hon. Gentleman ought to realise that he should never refer to small farms when dealing with agricultural matters, since the European Community might remind him that 90 per cent. of the farms in Portugal consist of less than 5 hectares and that in Italy the average farm is a holding of 14 acres.

Mr. Geraint Howells: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Gummer: If aid is directed to those small farms, there will be none left for the farmers in Dyfed. If he wants resources to be transferred from this country to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Ireland, he should tell the electors of Ceredigion. No one in Ceredigion would support him. In those circumstances, he ought to stand for election in Portugal, Italy, Greece or Ireland.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I must not give way to my hon. Friend, or the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will feel justifiably hurt.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I agree that the common agricultural policy needs to be fundamentally reformed. Environmental support must be the driving force if we are to ensure that our agricultural industry is provided with a firm foundation for the future. We must ensure that British farmers are able to look after their land and produce food. We agree about those issues. However, it does the hon. Gentleman no good to pretend that that can be achieved by any British Government on their own. It has to be achieved within the European Community, of which we are a member. His party rightly supports our membership.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It is not right for the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to pretend to the farming population that there is a tenable small farms European Community policy that will not result in the devastation of British agriculture. Any party that makes such a proposal does so for electoral reasons that will be found to be dishonourable.
I shall conclude by repeating the points that I made in my speech to the National Farmers Union about how to change the common agricultural policy to enable it to deal with a time of surplus as it was able to deal with a time of


shortage. First, we must change it to bring the farmer closer to the market, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agrees, but at a pace and speed that farmers can accept. That is necessary and we know that. No amount of enthusiasm for the interests of consumers can hide the fact that they would be a great deal worse off if they could not go into a countryside cared for by farmers or buy food produced by British producers.
Secondly, we must ensure that there is a better way to help farmers to care for the countryside—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: But the Minister has not told us how he is going to do it.

Mr. Gummer: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech which describes in great detail how we should proceed. We must convince the Community.
We are the European leaders in environmental improvement and our environmentally sensitive areas policy has now been copied by France, Germany and Denmark. Our nitrate-sensitive areas policy is now seen as a model for the rest of Europe. Our countryside premium is a successful pilot scheme in the east of England and I hope that it will be the basis for extension elsewhere. We are proposing environmentally satisfactory set-aside with a different structure which would enable us to improve farming incomes and, at the same time, to provide better land protection, preservation and conservation. As we are the leaders, I suggest that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) reads my speech which sets out in detail and clearly the environmental direction that we hope that the European Community will take.
There is no way in which we can achieve that unless we can defeat the MacSharry plan and replace it with the sensible common agricultural policy that we want. I beg the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North not to say the type of things that may sound all right on the hustings in British constituencies, but which would enable the Community to make changes that would destroy the livelihoods of the people whose votes he seeks to attract.

Mr Robert Maclennan: Intellectual vacuity.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is good at making sedentary comments. He has not stood up to try to intervene. He may comment on the intellectual content of my speech, but I remind him that he is the creator of the compulsory pig-weaning system. He suggested that we have pig police to check that pigs are not weaned earlier than they should be. He did not realise that pigs farrow sequentially and that if they farrow at midnight, the ones born later would have an extra day before they were weaned. That is the intellectual base of his agricultural knowledge, so it is not surprising that he addresses the House from a seated position. If he were to stand up, he would be knocked down. The hon. Gentleman must not help us in that way.
The motion is a means by which the Liberal Democrats seek to hide the fact that they have no alternative policy and it uses language that they hope will win one or two votes. In case anybody believes it, I shall quote some facts at random. These are the figures for the north-western region, which includes Lancashire and the dales. I hope

that the Liberal Democrats will explain to people there that there are 7,937 active milk producers, 58 per cent. of whom would suffer cuts of 10 per cent. in their quotas if the MacSharry proposals were accepted. By talking about small farmers, the Liberal Democrats are determined to undermine the Government's intention to fight the proposals. That fact should be known by every farmer not only in Ceredigion and in Brecon and Radnor, but in the Lancashire dales in case they have an opportunity to ensure that that party is no longer represented in this House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on his able speech. I have a great deal of respect for his experience and I enjoyed listening to what he said on behalf of his constituents and farmers in general.
The Labour party recognises the pressures that farmers are facing in the present circumstances. This year is perhaps one of their worst for a long time. Their problems are not all caused by the European Community, as has been mentioned, but, so far it has not been mentioned that one of the worst pressures facing farmers is crippling interest rates and the Government's general mismanagement of the economy. Like other businesses and industries, large or small, farmers are hurt by the economic climate.
The Opposition wish to make it clear that we agree with the Government that the CAP must be reformed urgently. There must be movement towards the general agreement on tariffs and trade with other countries. It is intolerable that subsidised food surpluses from the European Community are dumped on to the world market and then hinder other countries, especially developing countries and third-world countries, in developing their own agricultural industries. In many cases those industries are the only ones that they have to sustain their economies.
Following the Minister's comments, I wish to put it on record that the Opposition accept that the MacSharry proposals discriminate against the United Kingdom in particular. The Minister was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) who referred to the "future harvests" proposals of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and said that the MacSharry proposals on the environment—not all his proposals—were in line with Labour party proposals. At that time, the MacSharry proposals had not been made public.

Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to refresh his memory. The question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) referred clearly to the impact of agriculture on the environment. However, in his supplementary question he asked:
Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals?"—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
He meant the proposals of the Commission, which refer not to the environment but to the proposals for reform of the CAP. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) must accept that his hon. Friend said that the Labour party favoured the MacSharry proposals.

Mr. Morley: I am giving the official Labour party line on the proposals, which is on record as opposed. To clear up the matter, I shall quote my hon. Friend's full supplementary question. He asked:
Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission for the reform of the CAP and CPRE's excellent document. `Future harvests'? Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals? Will he now change his approach to the problem?"—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
By any standard, that is not an endorsement of the MacSharry proposals.
We recognise that the MacSharry proposals would increase the cost of the CAP. That in itself is a cause for concern, given its enormous cost to the taxpayer and to the consumer. In all fairness, Mr. MacSharry was trying to tackle the problem of the CAP. His proposals will discriminate against many British farmers and may fall disproportionately heavily on the United Kingdom, but he was making a genuine attempt to do something about the CAP. He does not deserve the abuse that he has received, especially from the Minister, for his proposals. Some of his arguments in defence of small farms are not unreasonable, either here or abroad.
Many members of the farming community are concerned about the Minister's attitude. Let me quote the opinion of The Scottish Farmer:
Mr. Gummer, on the other hand, is unequivocal … Small farms should be helped to restructure, he said. If that was not possible, they should be prepared to move out. And that cannot be a warning just for the so-called inefficient farmers across the Channel. It must also be of great concern to many farmers on this side, highly dependent on EEC and government support, which is undoubtedly set for continued decline.
That is not my opinion but the opinion of the farming press, expressed in a newspaper which I imagine speaks for a great many farmers and their concerns.

Mr. Gummer: Let me make this clear. I said that, in EC terms, there were no small farms in this country. Many small farms in the British sense—family farms—are economically viable and, if the Community were properly organised, would be perfectly capable of producing an adequate income for their owners and workers. On the continent, however, many farms are so small that in no sense can they produce an adequate income. Surely one can make the distinction between sensibly sized farms and the farms to which some have referred as allotments. Even such an eminent source as The Scottish Farmer must see that that distinction is clear. We need restructuring where farms are so tiny that they cannot be sensibly worked. Britain has already undertaken such restructuring and I do not see why we should pay for other countries to do the same.

Mr. Morley: I do not disagree that some farms on the continent are so small that their viability is called into question, but we should also bear in mind the fact that many European farms are better for the environment because they have not been amalgamated in the damaging way in which many farms in this country have been amalgamated over the years.
Small farms may be economically inefficient, but we are talking about supporting people on the land. The EC spends £24 billion on the common agricultural policy, the bulk of which goes on the storage and disposal of

surpluses. If the EC can do that, I see no reason why it should not have a coherent policy to support small communities and small farms and to keep people on the land by providing them with income and helping them to protect the environment in desirable ways.
I would point out to the Minister that certain areas and practices are extremely important in ecological terms. I cite the traditional grazing practices used in Spain, and the cork forests. If we are to spend money on the CAP anyway, I would rather see my money and my taxes being spent on supporting small communities and on protecting the environment than on the disposal of food mountains.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not my hon. Friend saying something slightly different? Is he not suggesting that we need rules to allow us to abandon the rubbish of the CAP, which is destroying agriculture, and to look for alternative ways of directly affecting the environment? That will not happen if we support the MacSharry proposals.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion, very much in line with the Labour party's green premium, which would direct support to farmers in ways beneficial not only to communities but to the environment generally.
We have talked about the move towards larger farms. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting and there was much in it with which I would not necessarily disagree. Having said that, I believe that he placed too much emphasis on the need for larger farm units, although perhaps I misinterpreted his remarks. I do not believe that the amalgamation of small farms into larger farms is necessarily the best way forward for British farming. It deprives many young people of the opportunity to go into farming, and concentrates power in the hands of a few people. I do not see anything particularly efficient about one large farmer receiving lots of subsidies as opposed to more small units receiving a share of the support.
The Minister also appears to view in black and white the environmental impact of small and large farms. There are good and bad farms in both categories.
There are some very well run large farms but in many cases, larger amalgamated units have uprooted hedgerows and chopped down woods to get ever larger machinery on to the land. I am not sure that we should want to pursue that route. In the end, circumstances may arise in which even the farms that are large and efficient by present standards may not be able to compete and they will still need a measure of support. I refer to the uncertain future in farming, to the likely move towards world prices and to the unknown impact on farming of the developments in eastern Europe. I do not disagree with the Minister that the move towards world prices and towards greater freedom in terms of produce ought to be gradual.
Many farmers in the less-favoured areas and uplands do not seem to fit the Minister's criteria for the future of farming. I think that there is room for traditional small farms, and I disagree with the Minister that there are no small farms in the United Kingdom. Has he not heard of crofts? Do not they fit into his analysis of small farms? In my view, crofts deserve some support.
A balance should be struck between the need for efficiency and for larger units and an international free market for their produce to allow a fair share for


third-world and developing countries. We need to give financial support and to provide a safety net and to improve our environment through the continuation of policies that we have supported, such as environmentally sensitive areas, and policies that we advocate, such as the green premium. We need to build upon those achievements. We need to look at the use of set-aside, and I welcome the enhancement of set-aside payments to allow its use for conservation purposes. That is a great step forward in a policy about which I have grave reservations none the less.
We need far more research and development of alternative crops and farmland uses. I was interested to read Sir Derek Barber's comments about the use of farmland that is suitable for the growing of phragmites to clean up sewage and dirty water. It is an exciting and radical proposal. I have read scientific papers on the use of phragmites in wetlands. It is one way of recycling and of cleaning up emissions. It is useful and enhances the environment.
I was disappointed in the Minister's comments to the NFU about biomass experiments, even though I accept that they may not be especially economic at present. I have seen them in Sweden and I have seen the experiments that are being funded in Northern Ireland, and I would not rule out such a radical approach to the provision of alternative crops and farmland uses.
At a time like this, farmers need to be encouraged and supported by the Government. I took the Minister's comments that he was not advocating a free market approach but that was not the impression I had from his speech and his undue emphasis on larger units. A balance must be struck if we are to move towards orderly change and the reform of the CAP. The Government must face up to their responsibilities for research and development, structural support and environmental policy. Above all, they must give some thought to their disastrous economic policy which has been responsible for pushing so many farmers, who were already teetering on the edge, over the brink. The responsibility lies with the Government. I accept that these days much farm policy is directed by the EC but it is in the Government's hands to change and improve the economic policies under which farmers operate, and they should give some serious thought to that.

Mr. Paul Marland: It would be wrong to say that farming was not in difficulties at present, because there is no doubt that, like many other businesses, it is. But many factors other than Government policy affect the future and the success of farming. After all, farming is a cyclical business. For example, recently the great difficulty of the snow has made the job of the farmer a great deal harder. Before that, last summer, there was a serious drought in this country. It is all too easy for Members of Parliament, working in the environment here, to forget about that. The drought had a serious effect on the livestock farmers in my constituency.
The amount of fodder that farmers could produce last summer was greatly reduced because the lack of rain meant that the grass did not grow. By the middle of October, a great deal of the fodder for feeding dairy cows

had been used up. I have a friend in the forest of Dean who has over 100 milking cows and is having to spend £1,000 a month on concentrates to feed his cows and keep the milk flowing. Of course, that is having a dire effect on the profitability of his enterprise, as, indeed, is the tremendous drop in the price of calves. In the year 1989–90, my friend was receiving £155 per calf. In 1991 that price has fallen to £45. That again has a tremendous impact on the man's profitability. Along with static cereal prices, levies and stabilisers, that has a serious effect on the income of all farmers.
But things would be much worse if Mr. MacSharry had his way. I make no apology for returning to some of his proposals. First, the proposals would increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, rather than reduce it. They would do nothing for the environment. They make no mention whatever of consumers or the farmers' customers. The proposals would make European agriculture non-competitive and non-innovative. The farmer will be told that, if he has a small dairy herd or a few beef cattle now, he will be supported to continue to farm in that way for the rest of his life. Of course, some small farmers in Europe would very much welcome such a proposal.
Opposition Members may be interested to know that 80 per cent. of the milk consumed in Portugal comes from dairy herds of three cows or fewer. Those are the herds which Mr. MacSharry proposes to support. Equally, one cannot help but wonder why Mr. MacSharry wants to give small Irish farmers with herds of only 40 cows extra money to keep them in business while their larger partners in Wales with 50 cows are put out of business by the proposals.
Under Mr. MacSharry's proposals, 85 per cent. of United Kingdom production of milk would suffer a cut, whereas only 32 per cent. of the production in Europe would suffer a cut. There is a temendous slant against the United Kingdom. In cereals, 58 per cent. of United Kingdom area and revenues would be cut by up to 27 per cent., whereas 56 per cent. of EC area and revenues would be increased by 5 per cent. There would be no reduction in the support prices of sheep for our 11 partners in the EC. All reductions would fall on the bigger flocks in the United Kingdom. Matters would be a great deal worse if Mr. MacSharry's proposals were seen through.
I am extremely glad, as are most British farmers, that we have such a strong Minister to stick up for the interests of British farmers. He showed that by his spirited performance at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deserves congratulation and recognition for what he has been able to do for British farmers. It is important to remember, as he said, that 80 per cent. of European support money is dished out by Europe and only 20 per cent. is provided by domestic Governments.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the hon. Gentleman support a move to ask the Government to abandon the CAP and return to national Governments the right of support? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does he agree that that would allow individual small farmers to have a proper income and that it would benefit taxpayers?

Mr. Marland: The hon. Lady has obviously struck a chord with some of my hon. Friends. But as we are a partner in the European community, I do not see how we could possibly come out of the CAP.
As I said, the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister should be recognised. He has done a good job in seeking more money from our Treasury to support farmers in difficult and disadvantaged areas. The 14 per cent. increase that he announced earlier this week will go down well in all districts.
I notice that the Liberal party's motion calls for more money for environmental projects and works and more assistance to farmers for marketing, but grants are already available. Grants are being slewed towards encouraging more environmental work, under the countryside stewardship and other schemes. Tree planting and care of trees once they are planted is being encouraged. I hope that soon we may see a system whereby farmers are encouraged to take care of existing trees and woodlands and given some small recognition for doing so.
Grants are available for new projects which farmers want to launch and for feasibility and marketing studies. Although set-aside is a controversial matter, in marginal cereal-growing areas it is widely welcomed. It is an alternative for cereal growers. The money goes direct to the farmer, rather than into storage and disposal, about which so many people have already expressed their displeasure today.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would make more sense and be more popular among farmers if more effort were put into a programme of extensification, rather than set-aside, which can promote more intensive farming methods on the land still in use and is unpopular with the farmer and the consumer?

Mr. Marland: I shall come to efficiency and intensive agriculture in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Another of the many alternatives being suggested to farmers offers a way in which they can improve their business and their cash flow. My right hon. Friend the Minister has asked local authorities to ease planning permission on projects put forward by farmers to make use of redundant farm buildings and other rural projects. Farmers should be congratulated on drawing up such schemes. Perhaps another letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister to local authorities reminding them of that request would not go amiss.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How can m y hon. Friend seriously say that set-aside is a success? He must know that we have spent a fortune paying people for not growing cereals, yet the amount of land used for cereal production has increased by 212,000 hectares. How does that make economic or common sense?

Mr. Marland: The extra ground which has come into production may well have been balanced to some extent by the amount of ground that has been taken out of production. We do not seek to dictate to farmers exactly what they should do with their land. We seek to give them a menu of alternatives while telling them—the majority accept it—that we are not prepared to continue financing increased production indefinitely.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke earlier about proposals for bringing more

land for letting onto the market. He may be interested to know—I hope that one of his colleagues will relay the message to him—that some of us on the Conservative Back Benches had the Tenant Farmers Association to see us earlier this week, which welcomed with open arms my right hon. Friend the Minister's proposals. Again, my right hon. Friend should be congratulated.
We have never wavered from backing efficient production. We have said a firm no to the theory of supply management, which is not the right way forward. Furthermore, it is a myth to imagine that small farmers are more environmentally conscious than large farmers. In my experience, small farmers need all the money they can generate on their farm in order to survive. They cannot leave money aside to invest in promoting and succouring wildlife.
I am not keen on the endless move towards smaller farms, nor the assistance given to them at the expense of larger ones. In this connection, I am talking about either the farms that we describe as small ones, or the allotments in Europe that are regarded as small farms.
I have a friend in south-west Scotland, in Wigtown, who farms some of the most difficult land in that country. He has 1,100 suckler cows and he employs 14 men. He also employs members of those men's families, and together they have created a worthwhile and solid agricultural unit. It is wrong that that efficient farm should be penalised so that support can be given to smaller, less efficient family farms. His family farm is much respected by everyone who lives in the district.
As we move into a more competitive world I am glad that my right hon. Friend has asked the Milk Marketing Board to make some suggestions as to how it can become more appropriate for today's market. Apparently the announcement on that will be made on 6 March and I hope that the board will offer some constructive suggestions for the way forward. A lot has changed in 60 years—the board fulfilled a much-needed role then, but not today.
It is not right to deride the dairy trade industry because it is seeking to change the board. Of course it is, because it wants the right product so that its members can obtain maximum value from what they are seeking to produce. Some yoghurt producers want low butter-fat content milk, but they cannot get that from the Milk Marketing Board. It is right that the board should be asked to modernise so that more money can go to the farmers. I hope that Bob Steven, the chairman, will get solid support from the 15 farmers who also serve on the board.
It is a competitive world in the EC, and I hope that the Minister will do something to improve the lot of our farmers regarding salmonella. The Select Committee on Agriculture held an inquiry into salmonella and the Ministry responded by introducing a system for slaughtering chickens infected with salmonella. That system has done a fantastically good job of cleaning up egg production in the United Kingdom, but what about the eggs that are imported? Few of them are ever checked for salmonella. That process takes five days and I know that random checks are undertaken, but by the time the salmonella infection has been proven, the rest of the eggs in that batch will have been eaten. Often imported eggs are repacked and the box carries the message "packed in England", so some of our less well informed housewives


think that they are English eggs. That is causing great difficulties for our egg producers, and I hope that Ministers will do something about it.
I am sceptical about the attempts to improve animal welfare. I am a farmer and I do not want anyone in the House to think for one minute that I am against animal welfare. I am glad, however, that the Ministry has set an eight-year lapse before dry sow stalls and tethers are to be abolished. I hope that that abolition will promote happy pork, produced in the United Kingdom, so that people do not choose imported pork. However, we still eat a lot of white veal and pate de foie gras that is produced abroad, and those processes show scant regard for animal welfare. That has not dried up the demand for those products.

Mr. William McKelvey: Such products should be banned.

Mr. Marland: Those processes have been banned here, but not on the continent. Such matters should be taken up vigorously by our vigorous Minister. I am sure that that will happen.
A year ago, the price of a calf stood at £155; now, it is £45. I understand from a reliable source that imports from eastern Europe have depressed the calf price in this country. Those calves are smuggled over the border into what used to be known as East Germany, and they are then released on to the market. Those calves are being imported by the lorry load—30 lorries a day—and, as they are sold in the EC market, they attract extra grants and subsidies. That is having a serious effect by depressing the price of beef in this country. I know that other hon. Members have heard similar tales. I hope that the Minister will take steps to bring that practice to an end.
Fallen stock used to be picked up by the knacker men who made money from it by turning it into tallow. However, the market for tallow has dropped and farmers are now being asked to bury their own dead or fallen stock on their premises. It is quite a big job to bury a cow, and the only alternative is incineration. We know that there is not enough incineration capacity in this country and we have all seen pictures in the press of open pyres with bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle being burnt on them.
What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of more animal incinerators? Someone in my constituency wants to build such an incinerator and, believe me, that is a controversial issue. No one wants such an incinerator near their house or village. I should be interested to learn the Ministry's attitude towards incinerators and whether it has in any way encouraged the building or development of such incinerators.

Sir Hector Monro: I have been pursuing the problem of fallen stock for the past 15 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to have on-farm disposal pits or an incinerator system? Those suggestions deserve a 50 per cent. grant under the farm improvement scheme or some pump priming from the local authorities.

Mr. Marland: That is a useful suggestion. I raised that very issue in the hope that Ministers can enlighten me

about it. I understand that the Governments in some other EC countries take a positive role in providing incinerator facilities for fallen stock.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Incinerators and animal processing units should be built as far away as possible from any village, farmhouse or populated area. They must be built near motorways and provided with a decent motorway exit, but they must be well away from all inhabited dwellings. My constituency has suffered this problem for the past 20 years, and it does not go away.

Mr. Marland: Thanks for the warning. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that when he replies.
Agriculture is going through a difficult stage now, but it is a cyclical business and it would be wrong to lose sight of our objectives in the reform of the CAP. We have a spirited team of Ministers to look after the interests of our farmers in Europe, their attitude is enormously to their credit. I recommend to my hon. Friends that we should throw out the Liberal Democrat motion with little ceremony.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) raised specific issues relating to fallen stock and farm size and I hope that the Minister will respond to those issues.
I shall not deal with the specific aspects of the current crisis facing agriculture, but I shall outline the general problems that confront farmers throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Agriculture is in a crisis which is affecting almost every sector. The range and diversity of the problems make it difficult to know where to start to provide solutions, but those solutions—be they long-term or short-term—are desperately needed. The problems are clear. Farm incomes are now at their lowest level in real terms since the end of the second world war. Farmers are also facing difficulties because of high interest rates and increased input costs. A record number of farmers have left agriculture—I believe that, in the past 10 years, 80,000 farmers have left farming: that fact speaks for itself.
The crisis is affecting every sector of agriculture. In the beef sector, store prices have tumbled. The dairy sector has been affected. In sheep farming, there has been a 30 to 40 per cent. fall in lamb prices over the past two years alone. Cereals, too, have been affected. The result is falling farm incomes. That means that there is no money for investment and that further trouble is being stored up for the future.
Looming ominously over all this are the GATT talks and a disastrous CAP, both internally within the European Community and externally in its relations with the rest of the world. The European Community, with its common agricultural policy with massive surplus production, also happens to be the world's leading agricultural importer and the world's second largest exporter. Its common agricultural policy is a recipe for trouble unless it is sorted out.
The question is: how will it be sorted out and in whose interests? Scotland's problem is that our farmers listened to Governments and followed their policy directions, backed up by the world's finest agricultural research organisations. The very products of Scottish agricultural


success—larger, efficient units, top-quality production allied to massive investment in machinery and farm improvements—are threatening the livelihood of farmers throughout Scotland who have followed Government policy up to now.
It would be easy to catalogue the problems facing the industry—the livestock disaster threatening the hills and uplands, the annihilation facing Scotland's magnificent soft fruit industry because of short-term eastern European bulk imports, the poultry and beef sectors rocking back under recent health scares, and so on. It is more important to ask the Government what they intend to do positively about the problems. The Minister did not address that earlier. He spent much time attacking the Liberal Democrats but very little addressing his answer to the current problems.
It is not much use telling us that we should have attended the NFU meeting. Surely it would be better for the Minister to be in the Chamber, stating positively what he will do to answer the MacSharry proposals. We are entitled to ask the Government to spell out clearly what they intend to put in place of the unacceptable European proposals. We need a clear statement of the long-term proposals for the industry. Agriculture by definition requires longer-term planning if it is to survive and prosper.
The bane of agriculture has been a series of short-sighted, short-term solutions which have stored up the present problems. "Food From Our Own Resources" is a historical document, but it was the nearest that any United Kingdom Government ever got to a general, integrated, co-ordinated plan for agriculture. The more is the pity. Instead of clear thinking and a stable set of policy guidelines, we have witnessed a series of manoeuvres, wheezes and sticking plaster solutions.
For farmers that has meant a series of changing roles. They are now custodians of the land, with a range of changing products and income bases from farm shops to golf courses, from afforestation to raising red deer and llama, and chasing the bed-and-breakfast tourist trade, as well as income substitute schemes, such as set-aside. All this has happened rapidly and is simply a survival mechanism against falling agricultural income. That is where the Government should concentrate their minds. They should consider how to get money back into the rural areas of Scotland and into the pockets of the people to allow them to live and prosper in their rural communities.
The reality is an industry turning cartwheels because it does not know what it has to do to survive. Only Governments, who take the decisions, can tell farmers. That is what the Minister must do. It is no use attacking MacSharry and getting his first NFU round of applause for years. The Minister must state his positive proposals to give stability, income and a future to the agricultural industry.
What is the Government's view of agriculture in 10 years' time or even in five years' time? Where do the Government want the industry to be? What do they want the industry to produce? What is the Government's attitude to rural areas and communities? Do they really want the hills and upland areas to be cleared of population? That is exactly the direction in which Government policies are taking the hills and upland areas in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Agriculture has shown its adaptability and its immense capacity for efficiency and change, but it needs a set of

guidelines about where it is expected to go. Leaving structural changes to be decided by the brute forces of bankruptcy and unfettered temporary market forces is an abnegation of responsibility by the Government.
While appreciating the necessity to cut production and export subsidies, the SNP believes that the cash saved by the cuts should be redirected into the guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund to finance structural programmes to assist the rural economy. The Scottish Office should press for structural programmes for all the less-favoured areas in Scotland to include support for quality-assured schemes, diversification of farm activities into such areas as farm woodlands and new forms of quality production, as well as general support for social, commercial and small-scale industrial activity throughout the rural economy.
It is not in the interests of Scottish or European consumers and taxpayers to see agricultural production slashed through farm bankruptcies and economic hardship throughout remote rural communities. The Commission's proposals to concentrate farm support on small farms ignore the serious financial problems facing so-called large Scottish hill farms in marginal areas, where farm incomes may be considerably less than on many small farms.
The British Government led the Council of Ministers in the demand for cuts in production subsidies to aid the GATT talks. The Government must now lead a campaign to ensure that the application of the Commission's new proposals does not lead to a new wave of clearances from the land.
Scotland is capable of self-sufficiency in all aspects of food production associated with a temporate climate. It is the SNP's policy to maintain that position and to ensure that production above that level is aimed at high-quality foods for export. It is also our intention, which I recommend to the Government, to ensure that agriculture remains a mainstay of the rural economy and that, where practicable, it should be organised around units of viable family farms.
I remind the Minister that agriculture is proportionately far more important to the Scottish economy than it is to the United Kingdom economy. We believe that Scottish agriculture would benefit massively if Scotland had independent representation on the Council of Ministers and on the European Commission, and increased representation in the European Parliament. All that the Minister and his colleagues have done in Europe has convinced me more and more of the truth of that statement.
We seek a system that allows stability in price, in markets, in Government policies and in income levels, and with a clear goal for the future structure and production levels of agriculture. Agriculture is by nature a long-term activity; it must not be allowed to be gutted by short-term factors.

6 pm

Mr. David Nicholson: I assure the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that I appreciate the way in which the farmers of Scotland have suffered in recent weeks because of the weather conditions. My farmers on Exmoor and the Brendon hills have been coping with snow up to 1½ ft deep.
The considerable difficulties which farmers in Somerset and the west country face were summed up in the Somerset Farmer, reporting Professor John Webster of Bristol University as having told the NFU county annual meeting in Taunton a few weeks ago:
We are no longer lovable in the eyes of the consumer, and we are poor as well. To be rich and unloved would be bearable. To be poor but lovable would not be so bad. But to be both poor and unloved, as we are, smacks, as Oscar Wilde put it, of carelessness.
Despite that plight, we can boast certain success stories. We have the success of Liscombe research, launched by the Minister in another place about two years ago. That is happening on Exmoor. Also, increased interest is being shown by the farming community in Somerset and the west country in marketing their produce, summed up in Somerset Farmer for February of this year as follows:
Quality not quantity should be the aim if farmers are to regain both their popularity and profit over the years ahead.
I hope that the Ministry will continue to support in every way possible Taste of Somerset, which helps to market the foodstuffs that we produce. I commend greatly our excellent Somerset brie, which is equally as good, probably better, than the French product, and while my constituency is well known for Taunton cider, produced by the very successful company of that name, the real cognoscenti, when it is not Lent, partake of Sheppy's farmhouse cider, and I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who visited Sheppy's about this time last year. I cannot remember whether it was Lent.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred to the need to check on unhealthy imported eggs. On 31 January, as reported in column 615 of Hansard, I received an excellent written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health in which he listed all the dates on which infected imported eggs had been found, with the countries of origin. I regret to say that the country of origin was usually Holland. I hope that that problem will be tackled.
Having heard much in recent years of NFU criticism of Her Majesty's Government, I am delighted to quote from a resolution that was passed on 28 January by the Somerset and South Avon county branch of the NFU which, unlike the Liberal party and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howell), was unequivocal in its view of the MacSharry proposals. It said that it
condemns commissioner MacSharry's proposals for reform of the CAP as being deeply damaging and discriminatory against United Kingdom agriculture as a whole and against full-time family farms in the United Kingdom in particular.
The Minister will be encouraged by the next part of the resolution, which
fully supports the Minister of Agriculture in his opposition to the proposals, calls for the package to be scrapped and insists that the EC Agriculture Commissioner goes back to the drawing board and produces proposals which address the problem of rising support costs and falling farm incomes without damaging the interests of any particular group of farmers or any particular EC Member State.
The county branch estimated that, for a dairy producer with 85 cows, which is not a large herd, returns under the MacSharry proposals would be down by nearly 20 per cent. The Department has produced similar examples.
We congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his firm commitment to the farming community and the wider interest of the nation, the countryside and food production that he has shown in recent months. At Bournemouth last year, he said:
If farmers cannot earn a living then they cannot look after the land.
He said much the same in his speech to the NFU conference in London. He set out the issues clearly. He exposed the ghastly term "modulation," which sounds like an expression used in music teaching—I suppose that we are being made to suffer an Irish music lesson—and the extraordinary proposals there.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned in his speech to the NFU conference what appears to be a tobacco scandal. Apparently, nearly £1 billion is going into subsidising the production of quite low-grade tobacco, which I believe is exported to third world countries and does immense harm to the health of the people there. I have received letters from my constituents on the subject. I hope that the responsible Departments, whether the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Health, will tackle this matter.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement this week of a 14 per cent. increase in the hill livestock compensatory amounts, which will be welcome to my hard-pressed sheep producers, and in responding on Tuesday to the interests of young farmers in producing his tenancy proposals.
I am constantly reminded by farmers in my constituency that we must have a policy to replace the generation of farmers approaching retirement. The statistics show that many farmers now in work are relatively old and are approaching retirement, and it is difficult to know who will replace them, as so many sons of existing farmers are not interested in taking on even family farms. I hope that the tenancy proposals will help with that state of affairs.
At the same time, I warn Ministers of the danger of encouraging farmers or intended farmers to get into debt. I make no apology for raising this matter, which I raised earlier with the Prime Minister—the contribution of the banks and other lending institutions to business indebtedness in recent years. I have particularly in mind the effects on farmers, because an important factor that reduces the overall net incomes of British farmers, who are larger-scale and more efficient than continental farmers, is the indebtedness into which they have got in recent years. I welcome the Prime Minister's sympathetic comments on that matter.
I again press the Minister to bring forward as soon as possible more comprehensive and co-ordinated schemes to help the environment and countryside. We have many small schemes which are excellent—including environmentally sensitive areas, less-favoured areas, the farm woodlands scheme and so on—but the farming and environmental community want more co-ordination between the various schemes.
In that respect, my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and I supported the giving of LFA status to parts of the Blackdown hills in our constituencies. The Department took proposals to that effect to Brussels, and, although they were good proposals which encompassed


the parishes on the Blackdown hills in my constituency, they were turned down on what we thought were spurious statistics.
There is now a proposal from the Countryside Commission to give the area outstanding natural beauty status. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and I support that, but emphasise that it must be accompanied by environmentally sensitive area status, which includes grants and produces incomes for the farmers involved. We must have co-ordination between the various schemes, and I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment will work together to achieve that.
I shall not spend time today on the proposals of the Liberals, much though I respect the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, because he and his hon. Friends will get nowhere near governing this country. But some of our farming constituents might be considering the prospect of a Labour Government.
On that basis, it is worth while reminding them of two comments made by Labour's senior agriculture spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke). He is not in his place for the debate, and I note that the Labour party is rather diminished in its Back-Bench support. In Farming News of 1 June 1990, he was reported as having said about agriculture:
We have no strategy and we won't have until the general election.
I hope that farmers will see through that. At a recent Question Time in which I participated, he asked:
Is the Minister not aware that it simply does not make sense to throw good money after bad to subsidise farmers?"—[Official Report, 29 November 1990; Vol. 181, col. 998.]
Farmers will remember that as we approach the next general election. They will see through the Labour party's blandishments in trying to coax support front the countryside.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Last November, I was unlucky enough to come second in the ballot for private Members' motions. I chose a subject almost identical to the one that we are debating today, though I limited it to the future of Welsh farming, since it is areas such as mine in Wales that are being hit hardest by the conditions created in agriculture over the last 10 years. I believe that such areas throughout the United Kingdom will suffer a decline of catastrophic proportions if farming is subjected to the continued pressures of dropping prices, crippling interest rates, high inflation and the vagaries of the weather, compounded by badly handled food scares and, in the sheep sector, French protectionism.
Farmers, especially small farmers, are in a vice. On the one hand, to maintain incomes they must intensify and modernise. That threatens the industry's long-term sustainability and can harm the natural environment, the social structure in rural areas and even, possibly, public health. On the other hand, current methods of farm support are discredited by consumers and taxpayers alike; they do not even support farming, which is their stated aim.
Farmers in areas like mine will not be able to continue in agriculture and also continue to protect the visual and amenity value of the countryside if prices keep declining. Last October, draft ewes were selling for £15. In 1989, they made £27, and the year before that, £35. The

Government's own figures bear this out. They show that farm incomes in Wales were cut by more than £12 million last year, on top of a fall of over £20 the previous year. If prices continue to decline and price support is cut also, farming will have little future on the hills of Wales.
This drop in prices alone would be bad enough, but when it is coupled with higher prices for machinery and inputs, huge rises in interest rates, the poll tax, reduced services in rural areas—bus services have been decimated in my area since deregulation—it makes the rural situation dire. The list does not stop there. Water connection charges have quintupled since privatisation and telephone connection charges, too, have risen. Post offices are being forced to close, and small shops are becoming non-viable. The rural environment in Wales and elsewhere is under serious threat.
If farmers are driven off the land—it is happening already—whole parishes will become wastelands. In my constituency, farmers with family farms feel powerless. They see lamb on sale in Tesco's for the equivalent of £70, when they have received possibly £25; they see their bills rising remorselessly; they see capital tied up in equipment that they cannot use because they cannot afford the staff to operate it.
Faced with this depressing scenario, what are the Government doing? They have given a small increase—14 per cent.—in hill livestock compensatory amount payments. That is very welcome indeed, of course, but it must be remembered that farmers' total incomes have fallen by 22 per cent. in the last year alone. If the HLC'A payments are adjusted, in real terms—that is, taking account of 1990–91 prices—the £142 million that is to be spent this year is approximately the same as the amount paid in 1988, and is less than that paid in 1987.
The Minister, quite rightly, rubbished the proposals for reform of the CAP that Commissioner MacSharry published recently. I am afraid that the Minister also attempted to score a cheap debating point when I put a question to him on 24 January. That was deplorable because, as he must know, I do not speak from the Front Bench, and therefore could not reply.
My question related to leaked proposals, which, so far as I was aware at the time—the Minister may have had other information; for all I know, he himself may have leaked the proposals—related to a reduction of expenditure on intervention and to support for small farmers. When it turned out that Mr. MacSharry's detailed proposals contained a definition of "small farm" that excluded the kind of small family farm in my constituency and in most other parts of Great Britain, it was clear that the results of the proposals would be quite different from their aims.
It is true, however, that the document of the Council for the Protection of Rural England—"Future Harvest"—is very similar to the Labour party's policy, and not very different from that of the National Farmers Union. Mr. MacSharry's proposals certainly would not help British farming at all. They seem designed to help the tiny, inefficient farmers of southern Europe, while creating large areas of wasteland out of the efficient family farms of Wales.
While, as I have said, the Government rightly criticised Mr. MacSharry's proposal, they seemed very reticent about coming forward with anything of their own. I suppose that, as their entire philosophy is based on slavish adherence to the free market, this is hardly surprising. A


free market, which even the Minister acknowledges does not exist, would mean our farmers having to compete with world prices determined by levels of subsidy, both hidden and overt, paid to farmers elsewhere.
People in Britain want to enjoy the countryside as well as its produce. They do not want it to decline into a derelict industrial site. However, what can the Government do? We on the Labour side believe that there is a viable future for British farming, but it requires an alternative approach that would be very distasteful to avowed free marketeers. We support the payment of direct income aids to farmers who need support most. Furthermore, we believe that the objectives of the CAP should be broadened to embrace qualitative aspects of food production, including the provision of safe, wholesome food at a reasonable cost, the sensitive management of agricultural land and the maintenance of rural communities. Green premiums would be introduced—farmers would receive a payment for managing their farms according to agreed criteria to encourage less intensive farming methods.
I am sure that the farmers in my constituency, especially those who wish their families to continue in farming, would welcome the opportunity to farm in such a sustainable way, to be able to plan for a future and to perform their very real role as custodians of the countryside.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I begin by declaring an interest: I am a farmer.
I read the Liberal motion with some astonishment. Of all the parties in this House, the Liberals are the most fanatically pro-Europe. They know perfectly well that agriculture is a European policy, and that 80 per cent. of agricultural expenditure is authorised by the EC, yet their motion ignores that fact. They dismiss it in precisely eight words, in an extremely lengthy motion.
The Liberals know, too, that, ever since the Conservatives took office in 1979, our Ministers have been trying ceaselessly, in season and out of season, to change the CAP. For years they came up against a brick wall. They were the only Ministers trying to change the policy; all the others were in favour of it. But now even the most bigoted can see that the CAP is leading to disaster, and our Ministers are at least getting some support from the others—and not before time.
No one now pretends that the situation is other than serious. The future is uncertain, but it is at just such a time that we need a tough Minister who will fight hard for us. We certainly have just such a friend in the present Minister. He is a jolly good chap to have in our corner, but he has certainly got a fight on his hands.
The greatest problem is the wholly biased and unrealistic attitude of the European Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry. It is incredible that someone who has such a romantic, nursery-rhyme concept of agriculture should have been appointed Agriculture Commissioner in the first place. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. He equates small with good, and his proposals weight the scales against efficient farmers, in favour of small farmers—just because they are small, not because they are good. His idea of a family farm is a tiny, heavily subsidised smallholding—possibly somewhere in

Eire or in Germany—where the husband works in a car factory during the day, works on the farm part-time and lives off subsidies. This is certainly not in the interests of consumers, who want to see food produced as efficiently, not as romantically, as possible, at prices they can afford.
The words "family farms" in the Liberal motion send shivers up my spine. The Liberals use that term at their peril, because their idea of a family farm and the continentals' idea of a family farm are poles apart. It would be crazy so to arrange farm prices that only farmers with fewer than 40 cows could make a living; 60 per cent. of British milk producers would suffer savage cuts, compared with only I per cent. in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
The farmers in my constituency will have noted with interest the Minister's observation that in north-west Lancashire and the Dales, out of 7,937 active milk producers, 58 per cent. would suffer a 10 per cent. quota cut if the MacSharry proposals were to be implemented. His proposals will cut cereal support prices by 40 per cent., but farmers with under 30 hectares would be fully compensated, and twice as many continental farmers as British farmers would be compensated. Under the proposals, 20 per cent. of United Kingdom cereal areas would have to be taken out of production but only half that amount in the EC. He also wants to reduce the headage rates for sheep, which would affect us more than any other country. This would be utterly disastrous for farmers in my part of the world.
The proposals are absolutely idiotic because, by encouraging the least efficient farmers—Mr. MacSharry always refers to them not as inefficient farmers but as family farmers—Mr. MacSharry would leave the world markets wide open for the United States, Australia and New Zealand exporters. The United Kingdom would be driven from the world markets. If farming is to survive as an economic activity in this country, the proposals must be defeated. The Minister devotes much energy to ensuring that they are defeated and to building up coalitions in the European Community. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will know that, in the European Community, we have to build up coalitions in order to achieve anything. However, we need to replace those proposals with ones that will be less costly to the taxpayer and will go directly to the farmer, while improving and maintaining the environment.
If support prices are to be reduced, they must be reduced fairly throughout the EC and in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seems to be more interested in the incomes of those in the developing world than the incomes of our farmers. I am very interested in the developing world and have served on committees and delegations that have been there.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall give way in a moment.
Farmers in the developing world can grow a great many crops that we cannot grow and they should concentrate on them. If we must take cuts in support for our products, we must insist that support prices for wine, olive oil, tobacco and cotton are also reduced. It must not pay southern European farmers to produce for intervention, as they


were doing until quite recently. They must also be obliged to obtain an increasing share of their income from the market.
Set-aside may reduce surpluses in the arable sector, but the countryside must not be left looking ugly. It must be environmentally cared for and financed. We must be certain that, if we set land aside, other EC countries do not increase their production to fill the gap. For centuries, the British have taken it for granted that farmers do not merely produce food, but care for the appearance of the countryside. After all, they had the biggest interest in doing so, as their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would inherit that countryside. That was easier to achieve when labour was cheap and plentiful, but it takes much training, skill and time to maintain the dry stone walls and lay hedges, which are so beautifully maintained in my part of the country, and which townspeople will drive many miles to see.
If urban dwellers want farmers to care for the countryside, farmers should be paid a fee—not a subsidy—for maintaining our hedges and walls in the traditional way. There is much more mileage in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which benefits farmer and visitor alike. The cost of caring for the countryside should be an integral part of the common agricultural policy and should be paid for, not just tacked on at the end.
Farmers are fiercely individual, and the huge, and economically powerful food processors and chain stores take advantage of that fact to cut prices to farmers. Ten years ago, milling wheat cost £105 a tonne and the housewife's loaf cost 34p, of which the farmer received 8·5p. Now, milling wheat costs about £110, and a loaf costs 50p, of which the farmer receives 9p—just ½p more in 10 years. The remainder is gobbled up by the processors and retailers. There should be a fair balance between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays, and the middleman should not skim off all the cream.
A substantial fall in interest rates would help farmers most. Yesterday's 0·5 per cent. fall is welcome, but a further 0·5 per cent. cut in the near future could make the difference between survival and failure for many farmers. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the 14 per cent. increase in the hill cow subsidy and higher-rate ewes announced on Monday, and his efforts to have payments made more rapidly, to which my farmers attach much importance.
I shall close as I began. When things are tough, one must know who one's friends are; I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is a friend of agriculture and will fight hard in Europe for British farmers and housewives.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Opposition Members have often criticised the Government's economic policy, highlighting its disastrous impact on industry, commerce and families. Among the many groups who have been adversely affected are the farming community. They do not always have a good public image. Perhaps in the past they have cried wolf too often, but this year there seems to be a great deal of substance to their claims that they are facing difficulties.
Farming income is at its lowest for 40 years and, according to the National Farmers Union, farmers' bank debts have soared to £7·3 million. That combination spells disaster and hardship, for behind every stastistic there is an

everyday story of country folk who face difficulties. High interest rates have been one of the major factors, and the 0·5 per cent. drop announced yesterday, although welcome, is by no means enough to solve the problems. The farmer who owns his own farm, has no overdraft and no hired labour may be able to weather the storm if he draws in his belt, but far more typical is the tenant farmer who has an overdraft and employs farm workers. He faces several problems. He also faces the justifiable demands of the farm workers, who are seeking to earn a reasonable living wage as they too try to cope with additional financial pressures.
Farmers whom I have met in my constituency are aware of the need to meet those demands, but they regard them as yet another pressure on them. For that group of farmers, there can be no light at the end of the tunnel. The National Farmers Union says that farmers' debts for 1990 were five times as great as their income, which dropped by 15 per cent. that year. I have spoken to farmers whose income is unsufficient to service their overdrafts. One Mid-Staffordshire farmer has shown me his bank statements over a 10-year period. His overdraft has increased by 800 per cent., his standard of living has declined considerably, yet he is working as hard in 1991 as he was in the 1980s—if not harder.
Some farmers have solved that problem by selling parts of their farms—providing that they can find buyers. In addition to high interest rates, farmers are struggling with falling crop and livestock prices. Many farmers in Mid-Staffordshire rely on members of their families to provide the extra labour required to manage the farm. That extra pair of hands is often provided by their wives, who not only help on the farm but may even run bed and breakfast to help supplement the family income. Farmers with children express concern and disappointment that their children no longer work the family farm, not necessarily because they do not want to, but because they are offered much better-paid jobs elsewhere, perhaps with perks and conditions with which the farmers cannot compete. The income from farming cannot support the family unit.
Farmers are worried not only about the loss of a pair of hands, but about the future of farming and rural communities. The nature of the industry is such that when farmers are planting crops or breeding and buying livestock they need stability to help long-term planning—and that has been missing. Farmers also need a Government who will respond quickly to their need for advice or compensation when faced with crises such as salmonella or BSE. They want reforms in the CAP, so that most of the budget does not go on disposing of surpluses which are both inefficient and morally wrong.
Perhaps British farmers have been the victims of their own success at improving efficiency and productivity. The subsidy must help both the supplier and the consumer. If reforms do not take place, we are likely to be left with some large ranch-type farms at one end and small part-time farms, like many in Europe, at the other.
In the past we have relied on the farmers to manage the countryside so that we can all enjoy the benefits of their good husbandry. The farmers, however, will not be able to continue to be the caretakers of the countryside if they are short of money. That is why a policy like that of the Labour party, which offers green premiums to help farmers to protect the countryside and grow food using fewer chemicals, is attractive to them.
Tomorrow morning, more than 52 million people will require breakfast, and most of the ingredients of their breakfasts will be supplied by the British farmer. Will that still happen in 10 years' time, or will we rely even more on imports from the rest of the world?
As a Member representing a farming constituency, and as a consumer who wants the security of knowing that we have a stable home agriculture, I declare an interest in the future of farming. This debate has been about the crisis in farming, and, to judge from what I hear from farmers in my constituency, they believe that the Government cannot solve their problems in that crisis.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland has a unique place in agriculture in the United Kingdom because agriculture is its main industry. More than a third of its exports come from the agriculture sector, which provides more employment in its ancillary industries than any other source of employment. Therefore, Northern Ireland is interested in and shocked by what is happening in agriculture today.
I believe that it would be in the best interests of farmers if the common agricultural policy were scrapped and we returned to national Governments looking after their own farmers. I heard the Minister saying that he hates the MacSharry proposals and that he was going to fight them and defeat them; but I want to ask how he proposes to do that. Under the new voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers, opposition from the United Kingdom, even in concert with one or two other states, would not be enough to block any package supported by the other member states. What is happening in agriculture, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, is politics. It has nothing to do with good farming or good production. That is why Portugal, Italy and Ireland—and Mr. MacSharry—are involved. The sooner the House faces up to that, the better for everyone concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been in Europe and he knows what is happening there. He has been a Member of the European Parliament. I asked in a parliamentary question recently what consultations the Commission has had with Her Majesty's Government about the proposals for the compensation of the small family farmers of Northern Ireland. I was not referring to farmers with two or three acres; I was talking about farmers with an average 50 acres. That is the size of the average small family farm in Northern Ireland. In any event, I was told in a written answer that there had so far been no specific consultations on this question between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commission. How do farmers feel about that? I am sure that the House would like to know what substitute or alternative proposals there are—what strategy the Minister intends to pursue.
Farming is in crisis, and more so in Northern Ireland because of our special position. People in Britain buying cereals do not have to pay extra transport costs for them as we do. Every farmer in Northern Ireland is at a disadvantage from the start. Now they will be at an even greater disadvantage; they will be pushed off the land altogether.
The Minister would help us all by telling us tonight what his alternative strategy is and how he intends to call

on the EEC to reject the MacSharry proposals and replace them with proposals that will help throughout the Community. Does he have alternatives; can he sell them and find the necessary support to defeat the proposals? There is a political coalition in the EEC which is not interested in farming. It is interested in the EEC purse and in how deeply it can put its hand into that purse.
These are the facts as I see them, as a Member of the European Parliament.

Sir Russell Johnston: This has been a debate about a serious issue. Agriculture unquestionably faces its worst crisis since the war. I welcome the Minister's presence throughout the debate, but I regret the absence of the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the absence of any Scottish Minister.
After the war, we first had a long period of relative stability, ushered in by Tom Williams. It is right to pay tribute to him for what he did. Then we joined the European Community and had a relatively short but enormously successful period of expansion and increased production and productivity, during which, through the common agricultural policy, we achieved a 75 per cent. self-sufficiency rate.
Many Members have rightly said that the CAP is in desperate need of reform—but we must remember two things: first, that it produced self-sufficiency where before there was shortage; and secondly, that when there began to be over-production, the European Commission, which is often vilified, repeatedly brought the problem to the attention of the Council of Ministers, with proposals for rectifying it. It was the political failure of the Council of Ministers to tackle these matters which lies at the root of our present problems.
I notice the Minister nodding happily, and that is all very well; but, for example, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, went down to the west country weeks before milk quotas were introduced urging farmers in the west country to adopt the solution of producing more and more. So we share our part of the blame for that.
There is uncertainty, and lack of confidence and of a sense of a clear way ahead—and we tax the Government with all those things.
The Minister provided us with a sort of low-grade entertainment show—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was perhaps a little better. I want to quote a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Mary MacKenzie of Newtonmore, written on 12 January:
We all know that the British Government are able to increase HLCA payments, but not only will they not announce an increase, they have not even sent out the application forms yet.
The letter was written in response to a letter that I had sent to the Minister of State in the House of Lords with responsibility for Scottish agriculture. It continued:
In any other year our completed form would be being processed by now and we would be awaiting the cheque a good proportion of which (£2,900—last year) would be used to pay the farmer who winters our hogs and gimmers. He says"—
that is, the Minister in the Lords—
'the French farmers have been 'especially hard hit'. When I first wrote to you we were very despondent, having just sold our calves with much reduced income, but worse was to come


when we sold the sheep and lambs. In 1989 our income from the autumn sales of sheep, cast ewes, claves and cast cows was £25,784 and 1990 that income was £19,032·10.
That is a very large drop. I accept that the HLCA has now been paid, but neither the Minister's speech nor his record impresses people who are struggling with debt.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who led for the Opposition, delivered a sensible and constructive speech and was right to attack the Minister's obsession with size. The hon. Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Marland) helped us with a useful critique of the figures proposed by MacSharry. He was quite right, of course, but if the figures are changed, matters could also greatly change.
For example, the NFU calculation on milk shows that, if 200,000 litres is used as a definition of a small milk producer, cuts in Germany will be 3 per cent., in France 5 per cent., in Denmark 17 per cent., in the Netherlands 30 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 50·4 per cent. Plainly, that is totally unacceptable. What difference would it make if the base were 300,000 or 350,000 litres? We must discuss this, not just in terms of the proposed figures, but in terms of what we are trying to do. I shall return to that. Existing milk quotas in European Community countries, except for the United Kingdom, are too high and are resulting in overproduction of approximately 14 per cent.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am pushed for time, but I shall give way and hope that the hon. Gentleman is brief.

Mr. McKelvey: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, when those figures are adjusted for Scotland, they will mean a 75 per cent. cut for Scottish farmers.

Sir Russell Johnston: That is a good point, and I accept it.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) drew attention not only to the livestock crisis in the hills, but to the difficulties faced by soft fruit growers. If the amendment that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) tabled had been selected, we would have supported it. He was right about the absence of forward thinking.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) spoke about indebtedness and the consequent impact of interest rates, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), who was also properly concerned with farm wages. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke knowledgeably about the erosion of the rural environment in Wales. The hon. Member for Lancaster felt that food should be produced economically and not romantically, but she favoured well-maintained dry stone dykes. Perhaps we are closer than the furious torrent of her words suggested.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Antrim, North.

Sir Russell Johnston: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sure that he is always north of most of us. He rolled out in his thunderous way and rightly asked the Minster what on earth he proposes for the future. That is the key to the whole debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was polite and over-fair to the Minister. Sadly, the Minister was himself—smooth tongued and glib and, as always, eager to make party

politics and to obscure the principal issues in a plethora of words. He was much more anxious to spend time trying to make political capital than to address issues. The Minister cannot tell me or any of my hon. Friends that we have an easy time in politics or that we play at pretend politics and do not care for our constituents. I am a tolerant man and I am prepared to listen to his arguments, but I am not getting the chance to hear them. He should do me and my hon. Friends the decency of listening to us.
There is a considerable surplus in butter and beef. I am told that about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus is directly attributable to the customer response to BSE, mad cow disease.

Mr. Gummer: indicated dissent.

Sir Russell Johnston: It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, but that is what the NFU tells me, and that is the only criterion that I can use. The Minister did not mention mad cow disease, but if it is responsible for about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus in the Community, it is a substantial matter. What is being done about it, how much more is being spent on research and are we making any progress? That is an important and grave matter.
We have to contain production, reduce surpluses and, naturally, we have to contain public expenditure. We must enable rural economies to survive, and that will mean redirecting income, which is what MacSharry talks about. We must find a way through the GATT negotiations. As the hon. Member for Taunton perceptively observed, those things have to be done at a time when agriculture is less politically popular than it used to be. It is more under assault than it used to be and finds it more difficult to get a resonance from the public.
We do not pretend that the problems are easy to solve; nor do we say different things in different places. I should like to think that we are reasonable politicians and, as such, we should like to see a sensible, staged policy for the future. I accept that the MacSharry proposals are unacceptable, not just in the north of Ireland but in that other place which the hon. Member for Antrim, North would not normally mention.
The problem that MacSharry addresses will not go away. Extensification, set-aside and rural management schemes will all help, but there must be some transfer of income from the big to the small to maintain rural life while retaining the market spur. MacSharry has the right idea but the wrong figures. The Minister said about the MacSharry proposals:
We hate them. We condemn them".
Those are not the words of a rational negotiator.
This has been a good debate and hon. Members have shown a deep concern for agriculture. The Government have not given agriculture sufficient priority in their thinking; nor have they been sufficiently clear about where they are going, and that is what farmers want to know.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Almost all hon. Members agree that many farmers face difficult times. We know that that is true and that there is no point in pretending otherwise. Few people have given the reasons for that. A biblical plague of locusts has not descended from the sky. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has said, the basic structural problem of over-production still exists


in the Community. In many respects, there is over-production also in the world market. Until we tackle that, we will not put farm incomes right, because we cannot maintain everybody on the land producing food that people do not wish to eat. Until supply and demand can be brought closer together, it will be impossible to maintain incomes from the marketplace. If that cannot be done, little can be done to maintain incomes other than by aid and subsidy.
It is not the policy of this Government or any hypothetical Government to allow farmers to become the recipients of perennial social security payments merely because they are farmers. That would be wrong for this or any other Government. I have mentioned overproduction, but we also know that there have been fundamental changes in patterns of consumption. BSE has been a problem in this country, but throughout the Community there is a decline in beef consumption. It may be a sociological trend, but it exists, and it started well before the BSE problem started in the United Kingdom.
There have been specific problems such as BSE, the drought, and early marketing of lambs because of the mild winters that we enjoyed until recently. There were problems also in the French and Irish markets, and because of the Gulf war, with the closing of middle east markets. In addition, output has been increasing, and this time there is not the blessed drought in the United States that helped us so much for a couple of years. World prices are declining, and the catastrophic fall in the value of the dollar has had an impact on the Community budget.
Neither farmers nor Governments can do much about those factors. Instead, we can only try to cope with them in the context of the Community. Where we can help, we do. That is why we increased the HLCA, and why it was so well received. We targeted it specifically at the most difficult sector—the uplands and the hardy breeds, which also received an increase last year. The forms were delayed because we were compelled to adopt a new scheme, which we opposed but which was forced upon us by the Community. Until we did that, we could not proceed to issue forms—but they are now all on their way. We will do the maximum we can to get payments to farmers as quickly as possible, because we know the urgency of the cash flow problems they face. I freely give that undertaking.
We also increased the suckler cow premium to the maximum, and developed a whole series of schemes to assist farms where possible. However, we must still apply a test of value for money. I repeat that we are not, and cannot be, in the business of turning the farmer into a recipient of social security purely because he is a farmer. That is at the heart of our objections to the MacSharry proposals—for it would have that effect on a whole category of farmers.
I admire the struggle of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in trying to decide what parts of the MacSharry proposals he liked or disliked. But he said that he was trying, and we all like triers. We are all reasonable people on these Benches, and we have never abused Mr. MacSharry. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] We may have said one or two marginally critical things about his proposals, but there is a distinction to be drawn between Mr. MacSharry—the personality with whom we

have to deal, day in, day out, and with whom our relations are impeccable—and his proposals, which we think are pretty bad for the United Kingdom.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and others reiterated their objections, and it helps us to know that the House is united in its opposition to the proposals. We need that influence and certainty in Brussels in arguing why we think that MacSharry's proposals are unfriendly to the United Kingdom. One reason is that they are fundamentally anti-commercial and anti-economic. One cannot engineer a flight from the marketplace. The quotas and controls implicit in the MacSharry proposals move away from the marketplace, and that does not make sense for farmers. Agricultural needs are best met by a policy that is organised around commercial operations that can survive in a market place. The proposals would also be expensive to implement. Curbing excessive expenditure by a large-scale programme of adding to the budget seems to us somewhat perverse.
The proposals also discriminate against the United Kingdom because of the price-tagging restraint that would have to be observed by United Kingdom farmers, and because they are selective in the product range that they cover, whereas the products of others that are seriously in surplus in the Community are not even touched by the MacSharry proposals.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned small farms. We should not romanticise about them. Many people are getting out of farming on the continent, where there is a problem of diversification. We do not have that problem in the United Kingdom, as I know from my own constituency. I will take lessons from no one on the problems of small farmers and farming. The problem in my Pennine constituency is not farmers trying to get out, but people trying to get planning permission to convert the barn and to live in it.
We object also to the attempt to keep pocket farms in existence beyond any reasonable test of viability. We are not opposed to the small farm. When we had 1 per cent. of milk quota to distribute, my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself decided to give a little over the odds to the smaller farmer to help him to survive. We sought also to introduce a new entrants scheme to help people who wanted to move into the industry. We have introduced our proposals on tenancies to help the smaller or younger farmer to get into the industry.
We will not take it from anybody that we have an ideological hostility to the small farm. Instead, we believe that the small British farm should not pay for the pocket farm elsewhere. That is not only wrong, but a futile policy. A farm of 40 cows, which will produce roughly 200,000 litres, is a fairly small one for the United Kingdom and for other parts of the Community. Even some people in the Republic of Ireland would regard it as a small-scale farm. The small or family farm would undoubtedly be hit by the MacSharry proposals, and there would be precious few beneficiaries in the United Kingdom from the pocket farm approach that appears to be at the heart of them.
It is true that we must work to find allies in the Council, and that we must respond to its proposals. The Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation, and we realised from the start that coalition building is the name of the game. We have been very successful in that. We were at the heart of the rational opposition to the MacSharry proposals because we managed to persuade others to come to our side.
Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding small farmers, when they were faced with the choice of opting for the commercial farm capable of delivering to the market place or for the nostalgic concept of peasantry, they decided that their national interests were best served by the commercial farm concept. That was the day when the bluff was called.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) made an important speech. He will excuse me if I refer to the intervention made in his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who I think was disappointed not to be called. He referred to the cereal acreage increase and to set-aside. British cereal acreage fell by 173,000 hectares in one year, and by 30,000 hectares the previous year. Since we introduced set-aside in Britain, there has been a decline in the cereal acreage. That philosophy has not been applied with anything like equal vigour on the continent.
The set-aside may turn out to be one of the pivotal ideas in the reformed MacSharry proposals. One of our pivotal ideas is to ensure that, whatever new law the Community makes, it becomes the law for everyone. Laws should apply equally across the Community, and burdens should be fairly shared.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has explained why he does not like the MacSharry proposals, and the right hon. Gentleman said why he does not like our proposals. Nor does the Minister like the NFU's proposals on production control. In what direction do the Government want to go?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, and if I have time, I will give him that explanation. The Government have set out their ideas on changing the CAP. They embrace a wide concept, but the essence is that there must be a move closer to the marketplace.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman does not say how.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke of slavish adherence to the free market. Anyone who has to run a part of the CAP will find it slightly curious to be accused of that. We would like to see a little more slavery from the rest when it comes to a free market. The hon. Gentleman said also that there should also be direct income aid. That is a horrendous proposition, if one multiplies it across the Community. There followed a series of happy little phrases, one of which was sensitive management. That was not very specific in helping farmers to comprehend the prospects of a Labour Government.
We think it important to operate closer to the market place. We see a role for specific aid for farmers—well tested and well costed—when there is a countryside function for them to preform. We see a role for certain restraints on output, which we may well find ourselves obliged to observe under the GATT. That is an important element for our farmers as well as all the others; the alternative is an horrendous trade war.
Those are coherent and long-standing policies, which remain valid and which we will defend. The Liberal motion is woolly, wordy and worthy, and is not worth a row of beans. I am disappointed to learn that the great party of Gladstone has surrendered to dirigisme and bureaucracy. I regret it, and the party will regret it, and I ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 141.

Division No. 66]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McKelvey, William


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Madden, Max


Beggs, Roy
Marek, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Bellotti, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Morley, Elliot


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
O'Hara, Edward


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cox, Tom
Salmond, Alex


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Foulkes, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wilson, Brian


Johnston, Sir Russell



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Ronnie Fearn.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Grist, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Ground, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hague, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Body, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowis, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Buck, Sir Antony
Jack, Michael


Butler, Chris
Janman, Tim


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knowles, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Curry, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dunn, Bob
Marland, Paul


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Emery, Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Favell, Tony
Miller, Sir Hal


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moynihan, Hon Colin






Neale, Sir Gerrard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sims, Roger


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Norris, Steve
Speed, Keith


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Speller, Tony


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Paice, James
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Neil Hamilton and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Shelton, Sir William

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 300 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to negotiate in Brussels so as to secure changes to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community which make it more market-oriented, thereby giving an incentive to efficiency, reduce surpluses, thereby lessening tensions in international trade, keep spending within the agricultural guideline, avoid discrimination against United Kingdom interests, and integrate environmental considerations more firmly into the Policy; and recognises that such a stance is necessary to take proper account of the interests of taxpayers and consumers while offering a realistic prospect of a successful future for British farming.

Fishing Industry

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move.
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for presiding over a crisis in the fishing industry which threatens the economic and social fabric of fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom; condemns in particular the compulsory tie up scheme and the Government's continuing refusal to promote structural support through the implementation of a well targeted decommissioning scheme; and calls upon the Government to pursue, with greater vigour, measures to combat industrial fishing and technical conservation measures including the adoption of square mesh panels, and to enter into discussions with representatives of the fishing industry for the purpose of devising a decommissioning scheme which will lead to a managed reduction in fleet capacity.
Those who take an interest in the fishing industry will have little doubt about the serious crisis of confidence in the industry. The eight-day tie-up may have given fishermen and their representatives a focus for their wrath and frustration, but even if the Minister were to surprise us greatly and announce this evening that he intended to renounce the scheme, I am sure that he would agree that the fishing industry's problems would not go away. This debate provides us with an important opportunity to discuss the serious issues that face the industry.
No fishing industry debate has taken place since the vital Council of Ministers meeting in December. The industry is vital in economic terms to many coastal communities, particularly in those areas where other opportunities for employment are in short supply. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends thought it appropriate to bring on to the Floor of the House our great concern about the future health of the fishing industry. We are conscious of the damage that could be done to the social and economic fabric of fishing communities if the malaise is not adequately dealt with. We do so, too, in the hope that Ministers, who have it in their power to improve matters, will listen to the debate and respond to it.
The Minister will no doubt draw attention to the fact that at the Council of Ministers meeting in December he managed to obtain continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague preference and improved flexibility with regard to taking our western mackerel quota east of the 4 deg W line. The Government ought to be congratulated. I have no quarrel with those aspects which are referred to in the Government amendment.
I suspect that we shall also hear from the Minister, as we did from Fisheries Ministers throughout 1990, that although catch opportunities and total allowable catches have been reduced, the price of fish landed has increased and fishermen's income has not necessarily declined. That ought to be put in its proper context. Even in 1990, in absolute terms fishermen's incomes were below those in 1987. In real terms, they were even further below those in 1987.
The price that a fisherman gets for his landings is only one very small part of the tale. We should also consider the return that he is or is not getting on his capital and the high rates of interest he has to pay on his borrowings, due to the Government's failed economic policies. In recent months, he has also had to face the increased cost of fuel, after oil


prices rose so sharply following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In Fishing News of 1 February there was a report that already there are signs of landings prices beginning to fall. I hope that the Government will not take refuge behind the wafer-thin excuse that they parroted throughout 1990—that prices are being maintained, or are even higher, and that therefore incomes are not falling.
We do not believe that the eight-day rule should be the be all and end all of the debate. Had it been called, I should have welcomed the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. I hope that the debate will not be seen as a substitute for a very full debate of the statutory instrument and the prayer against it dealing with the eight-day tie-up, which will have to be amended in the light of yesterday's announcement.
Considerable wrath and ill feeling have been generated throughout the industry by the tie-up. According to recent. editions of Fishing News, in my constituency Mr. John Goodlad, the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Federation, has described the proposals as "unjust and unfair". On 8 February, skipper Tom Watson of Fleetwood said in Fishing News that it was the last nail in the coffin and that
This Government doesn't want a fishing industry, that's for sure.
Skipper David Hunt of Lowestoft was reported in Fishing News of 25 January as saying:
Many more will be forced out until there are only a few left, who will then be disregarded, and Mr. Gummer will receive an accolade from his colleagues for a job well done.
Skipper Jim Vanko of Eyemouth said:
I wonder how MPs and officials would like their salaries to be reduced and the resultant financial savings squandered? This government has prided itself on encouraging initiative and private investment, yet every way the industry turns our feet are knocked from beneath us.
That is a selection of comments from different parts of the country which demonstrate the outrage that the proposal has caused.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the proposal will be a tragedy for Northern Ireland. Last year, the whiting catch amounted to 7,395 tonnes. That catch is to be reduced to 2,300 tonnes. The cod catch, which was 6,330 tonnes, is to be reduced to 1,200 tonnes. Northern Ireland's fishing industry entirely agrees with the sentiments expressed in the hon. Gentleman's quotations, as, I am sure, do other members of the fishing industry in other parts of the country—that, if it comes into effect, the proposal will devastate and finish off the industry.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman voices the concerns of his fishing constituents very well. The proposal is causing concern throughout the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that so many hon. Members with constituencies throughout the United Kingdom are present for the debate.
During the debate on 14 December, it was clear that the Government supported the compulsory tie-up. Initially, it was for 10 days. After the Council of Ministers meeting, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) told the House that he had secured a major concession and that the 10 days were to be reduced to eight. If that is victory to the Minister, heaven help us in defeat. Many people found it a negligible concession which would not make any material difference to the fundamental problem.
There are several objections in principle to the

provision. It will put pressure on skippers to put to sea against their better judgment, when weather conditions would make it far safer for them to stay in their home port. There is no guarantee that the eight days in the month during which they choose to tie up will coincide with the eight days of bad weather. The pressure to go out and to earn the livelihood that is being denied them for one third of the month will be far greater. Regrettably, too regularly in the House we mourn the loss of lives in fishing accidents. We do not want that to happen as a result of the regulations. The fishermen themselves are expressing the fear that they may have to put to sea in bad conditions.
There will be damage to the social life of the communities. I recall that, when he came back from the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that one of the important achievements of managing to reduce the 10 days to eight was that it would allow those who had strong religious beliefs to continue to practise their religion and not to have to go to sea on a Sunday. He will no doubt by now be in receipt of a letter from the Presbytery of Shetland which says:
In an attempt to compensate for being tied up for eight consecutive days every month, fishermen will inevitably begin to fish at weekends. Traditional family weekend activities, including church attendance, and way of life will therefore be put at risk within many small fishing communities around the entire coast of Scotland.
I know that the Minister is a man of profound religious conviction. I hope that he will ponder the effect of the rule on many communities in Scotland, in England and in Northern Ireland.
It is also fair to point out that there must be a question mark over whether the proposal will have the desired effect. The remaining days will be used to fish ever more intensively. We may find that fishermen are going through all the agonies, dangers and disruptions to their social life for no net benefit in terms of conservation. Next year, the Government and the Commission may have to think up another new rule to try to limit fishing activity.
We also have objections of detail. Skippers may have difficulty in crewing vessels when they are unable to offer continuous employment throughout the month, especially in Grampian in the north-east of Scotland, where other industries, such as the oil industry, offer attractive terms and a greater continuity of work.
Share fishermen will also be affected. The rules of the Department of Social Security will still mean that, if the eight days overlap two weeks, share fishermen will not be entitled to claim unemployment benefit, although they have paid a special stamp. In recent correspondence, the Department has shown no intention of relaxing the rules for those circumstances.
A skipper in Westray in my constituency pointed out to me today that, if he is to land his catch at Mallaig, he cannot bring his boat back to Orkney without it counting towards his eight days, even though he may do no fishing en route. It was described to me by another representative of the industry as tantamount to a curfew rather than a tie-up. With the level of fines that are imposed, it is highly unlikely that anyone will try to fish if they want to take a boat back from Aberdeen to Shetland. Fishermen will not fish if they cannot land their catch, and the minute they have landed their catch, it will be perfectly obvious to everyone that they have broken the rules and they will land


up with a hefty fine. I appeal to the Minister. If the regulations are to stay in place, I hope that some practical adjustment can be made to take account of such cases.
It has been pointed out to me that boats will tend to congregate in the bigger ports because they cannot get back to their home port. That may damage the economy of the smaller ports because there will not be work on run-of-the-mill repairs or maintenance. Log jams could occur at the bigger ports because too many boats may seek maintenance there.
Yesterday's derogation, and the concession, if that is what it is, that if vessels carry only long lines or have a net mesh size equal to or greater than 110 mm, with or without a 100 mm square mesh panel, has been welcomed by some sections of the industry. However, the Minister is over-egging it if he says that the concession has the full support of the industry. The English fishermen from the Humber and from the south and east coasts will find it a useful concession. Many of my constituents in Shetland will find it a useful concession because it will bring them a fair measure of relief. However, it does little or nothing for most of the Scottish fleet. It does little or nothing for, for example, the fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
We are entitled to ask the Minister whether he has any proposals for dealing with their continuing dilemma. Is he trying to divide the industry? The industry may already be divided within ports between the boats that are tied up under the rules and those that are not. That may not be secured by design, but it is quite convenient to have the industry divided on geographical lines. The Minister cannot do something for one part of the industry while ignoring the other. We shall be interested to hear what ideas he has for bringing similar relief to a large part of the Scottish fleet.
It is also fair to say that, although parts of the English industry welcome the concession, they do not do so gladly. It is a bit like a person who has been given a death sentence being told that it has been commuted to life imprisonment. Fishermen are worried that we are setting a precedent which could be extended to other parts of the country and to other species. The adoption of the 110 mm mesh size together with the 100 mm square panel might be seen by Mr. Marin and Commission officials as a signal of an acceptable regime to introduce at a future date. All sections of the industry would be opposed to that.
I have said that the eight-day tie-up rule is not the whole story. We have been landed with it because the United Kingdom Government have done little to take other measures to reduce the size of the fleet or to reduce catches. The Commission has been obliged to come in with measures such as this.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I want to make a point before the hon. Gentleman leaves the specifics of the eight-day tie-up. Does he agree that, although the Government appear anxious to describe the scheme as a European initiative, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the fisheries debate in the House in December, described these incredible measures as sensible?

Mr. Wallace: I always think twice before acceding to an invitation from the hon. Gentleman to agree with him, but on this occasion I must say that I do agree.
All parties agree that the future of the industry depends on a conservation policy. Although it recognised the difficulties, especially after the large cut in the haddock total allowable catch for 1989, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put forward in the late spring of 1989 a package of technical conservation measures. It included having a clean and effective minimum mesh size of 90 mm with no attachments or devices, whether legitimate or illegitimate, and a one-net rule, so that someone could not fish for white fish using a prawn net. The fishermen also suggested a ban on industrial fishing, an increase in the minimum landing size of whiting and more enforcement powers for fisheries officers on shore.
The debate tends to have become bogged down in mesh sizes. I am not saying that that is not important. The debate has also focused on the square mesh panel. However, we are entitled to ask what happened to some of the other measures. Have they been argued through at European Council meetings? Why not? What has happened to the one-net rule? Perhaps the Minister could report on how he has got on while trying to push that argument.
The objective behind all the measures, especially the square mesh panel, is to conserve stocks and to reduce the discards which many of us agree are one of the most appalling examples of waste. Fish are caught, yet cannot be landed and are dumped back dead into the sea. The square mesh panel and the different mesh size would lead to fishing for better quality and for a better size of fish, which is important for marketing.
The big hole in the Government's approach is their refusal to adopt—or even start to consider and discuss with the industry—a decommissioning policy. We are familiar with the arguments against it. We have heard—and no doubt we shall hear again tonight—that, in the mid-1980s, the Public Accounts Committee rapped the Government's knuckles. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that he will confirm that there was no opposition to decommissioning in principle and that the opposition was to a particular scheme.
We have also been told that a decommissioning scheme will not make any difference—that we will not be able to get the right boats out of the fleet. If the Government say that, they are giving up before they have even started trying. The industry is willing to discuss decommissioning. I am sure that it would not be impossible for Ministers to discuss the matter with the industry and to try to devise a well targeted scheme so that the fleet size can be reduced in a well managed way.
We are then told about the Fontainebleau agreement. I shall not go into the details of that, because it is rather complicated. As I understand it, although on the face of it a decommissioning scheme would involve a 70 per cent. contribution from the Community and a 30 per cent. contribution from the Exchequer, it is argued that, as a result of the Fontainebleau agreement, the contribution would amount to 30 per cent. from the Community and roughly 70 per cent. from the Exchequer. That conveniently ignores the tax implications for the fishermen. It seems that the Government are prepared to play with the figures one way but not to think the implications through.
Hon. Members will recall that the Fontainebleau agreement was a great diplomatic triumph for the former Prime Minister. Surely it is not the fishing industry's fault if, once the details have been worked out, the agreement is not quite as triumphal as it was made out to be at the time. Why should the fishing industry be singled out for discrimination? Why should the Fontainebleau agreement be invoked to deprive them of the opportunity to receive benefits that the European Community wishes them to have?
It is important to note that the common fisheries policy has two strands—the conservative side and the structures side. It is clear that the Commission intends to boost the structures side through decommissioning and by giving assistance to areas that depend on the fishing industry to help them to cope with the reduction in stocks. What we have from the Government is the worst of all worlds. Our fishing communities are penalised by the reduction in stocks, but they are receiving very few of the benefits on the structures sides of the policy. We have never yet had a convincing answer from the Government as to why that should be.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend will agree that there is an important third strand to Europe's policy on fishing, which is that it recognises national interests through the quotas allocated to the member nations in the various sectors. In that respect, the action of the Spanish fishermen in coming in to our waters and using our quota is devastating to fishermen who are struggling in all the ways that my hon. Friend has described. Certainly in my part of the world, the position that the Government adopt on that will be as important as any other element to fishermen's future.

Mr. Wallace: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for his area. I know that the problem is particularly acute in the waters around the south-west, where there is already evidence of Spanish vessels coming in. If the Government had built up more credit with the Commission over the years, rather than being seen to rubbish proposals such as that for health warnings on cigarette packets, they would have been able to bat on better ground when it came to a clear issue of national interest such as this.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Pathetic.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister may say that it is pathetic, but the Government have lost the battle and the Minister has given us no indication of how he proposes to defend the national interest. Fishing quotas are different from other aspects of Community policy. There is not a single market. National interests are identified and accepted; indeed, they are the sum and substance of quotas and TACs. The Minister will have to come up with something better than that sedentary remark. He failed to tell us his policy in the farming debate and he ought to do a little better this time.
There are signs that the Commission and those advising it see a need for further cuts in the size and capacity of the European Community fleet. The figure of 40 per cent. has been mentioned. Does the Minister recognise that figure? If the figure is to be anything approaching 40 per cent.,

how do the Government intend to reduce the capacity of the British fleet? Surely it cannot be through bankruptcy and insolvency—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Of course it is.

Mr. Wallace: It is true that that is what is happening, but surely that cannot be a sound or sensible way of going about things, even if it is the Government's way. Why will not the Government face up to their responsibilities and try to find a way in which the process can be properly managed? One young fisherman told me today that he saw little chance of being able to replace his 20-year-old vessel with something better. The Government argue that they are trying to conserve stocks for the fishermen of the future. But there will be no fishing industry in future if they kill it off by the measures that they are introducing. Of course conservation is important, but so is the survival of the industry. The Minister will have to do a lot better than he has done in recent debates if he is to convince us that the Government take the survival of the industry seriously.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister but not the amendment standing in the name of members of the Scottish National party.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'while recognising the difficulties which may face fishermen as a result of the decisions for fish conservation reached at the latest EC Council of Fisheries Ministers, endorses the need for such measures to safeguard the long-term interests of fishermen themselves by reducing the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks, welcomes the Government's continuing efforts to secure improved conservation measures and congratulates the Government on securing at the last Fisheries Council a package of measures which included the maintenance of the principle of relative stability, continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague Preference and improved flexibility to take our western mackerel quota east of 4° West.'
If we were still debating agriculture, I might say that I fear that we have shot the fox of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Perhaps I should say instead that we have landed his fish. The hon. Gentleman said that he would have adopted the Scottish National party's amendment had he had an opportunity to do so, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said the same in respect of the farming debate. Perhaps the two parties should get together and become one small party instead of two minuscule parties.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister now tell us whether the Ministry will enable the House to debate the statutory instrument referred to in our amendment?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that Government Departments do not determine the business of the House. Nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to debate that, or anything else, with the hon. Lady. I am perfectly confident that, following such a debate, the Government's position will be shown to be


convincing and her position will be shown to be ephemeral. I should therefore be delighted to debate the matter with her.
Let me address certain specific and important issues, the first of which is the eight-day tie-up. The origin of that was the scientific advice given to the Commission. That advice was that there had to be a 30 per cent. cut in effort. I did not invent the tie-up, and neither did any of my right hon. or hon. Friends. The orginal proposal was for a 10-day tie-up, along with 120 mm nets, together catching boats 40 per cent. of whose catch comprised cod and haddock. We negotiated on that; indeed, we had no option but to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I cannot follow the logic of the Minister's argument. How can the fishing effort be reduced by tying up for 10 days—now eight days—vessels that trigger the 40 per cent. rule when vessels that are not covered by it can go out as much as they like? How does that reduce the effort?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should address his question to the Commission, because the Commission is the origin of the proposal, which we contested. We got the proposal improved. If the hon. Gentleman waits a minute, I will tell him what we have done. We managed to reduce the proposal to an eight-day tie-up.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: I have given way twice already and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly so he need not fret.
We negotiated a tie-up for any period of eight days to apply to vessels which between 1 January 1989 and 30 June 1990 caught more than 100 tonnes of cod and haddock —we introduced that element for the North sea, the west of Scotland and Rockall—and whose catches of the species were more than 40 per cent. of the total landings in weight over the period. That applies broadly speaking, to 75 English and Welsh boats and about 390 Scottish boats. Collectively, those boats were responsible for about three quarters of the United Kingdom catch of the total quota of the species.
I sought from the Commission an undertaking that if we could make an alternative proposal based on selective gear, which would have the equivalent effect, it would entertain that proposal. It took a great deal of effort to get the Commission to agree even to look at such proposals. We obtained the undertaking only at the very end of the day—in the last minute of the negotiations. Since then, my officials have been working hard to put forward those proposals.

Mr. Salmond: From what the Minister says, he has no great belief in the eight-day continuous tie-up. Can we take it that he renounces the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland, expressed in the debate in December, that it was "a sensible measure"? Does the Minister accept that, although the 110 mm option may have some relevance for the English fleet and for some fleets in Orkney and Shetland, for the vast majority of Scottish boats affected by the eight-day continuous tie-up, the 110 mm mesh size is not a serious option?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman lives in a remarkable world. In his world, there are no conservation problems. It is a Yeatsian world, in which the seas are teeming with fish.
There is a conservation problem, and it must be addressed. Last year, we had a limitation on days of fishing. The rule was broken practically universally. We must have measures which are effective in cutting effort and are enforceable. The virtue of a tie-up rule, whether hon. Members like it or not, is that it is enforceable and cuts the effort.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Before he moves on, perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter. The Labour party does not follow the populist line pursued by others of saying that there is no conservation problem and nothing needs to be done. But the Minister must give a better answer than that which he gave to my hon. Friend the member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). My hon. Friend did not deny that there was a conservation problem, but he asked whether the tie-up would address that problem. He asked whether it was inevitable or even likely that it would lead to a reduction in effort. The Minister's response was extraordinary. He said, "Don't ask the Government, ask the Commission. It is all the Commission's fault." Is that really the Government's position?

Mr. Curry: That is not what I said. I said that the Commission was the origin of the proposals and that the British Government believed that a tie-up would be effective in cutting effort. But the 10-day proposal went too far, just as the 120 mm net proposal went too far. As I have said in the House time after time, we have two intentions. We must conserve fish stocks but we must also conserve the livelihoods of fishermen. The two are equally important because without one, we cannot have the other, we must have that double objective.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: This is the last time.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that, if the measures do not prove effective in reducing fishing effort, he and the Government will be prepared to see the number of days increased?

Mr. Curry: I am saying that we must apply the rules as they have been set by the Community for this year. As I am about to describe, we have some proposals on conservation which we believe will help the position.
We must also deal with technical conservation at a Community level. I was as disappointed as anyone else at the December Council that we could not take greater measures. For the information of hon. Members, I should say that a further Council has been fixed for 16 April to deal with our proposals and those of Commissioner Marin on capacity.
I congratulate my officials, who worked hard to construct our proposal. To be fair, the Commission officials were also helpful and constructive. As Commissioner Marin is a gentleman about whom I have had to say some hard things in the past, I also put it on record that he was co-operative and helpful on the gear option. I hope that we can maintain a constructive and


civilised relationship with him. He has the job and we must deal with him and work out sensible proposals with his help. In this case, it has worked.
The gear option is as follows. Fishermen will be able to use long lines. They will have to use 110 mm diamond shape mesh size nets, with or without the 100 mm square mesh panel. We shall apply a one-net rule so that boats can carry only that net and there is no doubt about the effectiveness of the option. We shall also add rules to stop the ballooning of the cod end and ban lifting bags and topside chafers. All those are elements of the proposal from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). We have taken its suggestions on board and we regard many elements as extremely sensible.
I shall table an amendment to the statutory instrument within the next few days incorporating the gear option, which will apply in legal terms from 1 March. But where vessels are clearly in a position to operate under it from an earlier date, I shall be willing to see them do so. In other words, we shall be sensible and pragmatic about the application of that rule.
There was never a chance of agreeing on a gear option of less than 110 mm. Other countries are also going for the gear option. To my knowledge, they have not yet obtained it. We are the first off the blocks with the gear option. Other countries also asked for the 110 mm mesh size. It was important that we kept our act together and asked for the same thing. The co-operation that we have established with other countries has been helpful.
I do not seek to conceal the fact that some fishermen will not find the gear option advantageous. I do not pretend that it will be received with universal cries of glee. Where whiting is an important element in the catch, some boats will not take the option. For such boats, the tie-up rules must remain, because they are now the law of the land. There will be an effect on the fishing effort. I make it clear that we shall enforce those rules. In our discussions on a whole series of issues in Brussels, not least the future of the common fisheries policy, a great part of our credibility stems from the fact that we enforce the rules. In a recent communication from Commissioner Marin, only one country in the Community was not criticised for its enforcement effort and that was the United Kingdom. That is of material advantage to us in Brussels.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister take on board what is happening in Northern Ireland? I know that he is aware that the fishing industry there is small and employs only about 2,500 people. But if the quotas which are being negotiated are applied, the entire industry will be devastated. Will he consider that?

Mr. Curry: I will certainly take it on board. I shall deal shortly with certain problems in the Irish sea, in which the hon. Gentleman will be interested.
I have taken several interventions. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so, if I may, I shall be more expeditious from now on so that I can get through my speech.
It is important that the producer organisations phase their catching over the year. That is part of the deal that we have done with Brussels. My officials will be in touch with the organisations to make sure that the fishery stretches across the year. That is also important for all sorts of sensible reasons, such as the guarantee of supply.
There is a conservation problem for cod and haddock. There is a specific problem in the North sea and the west coast of Scotland. In the Irish sea there is a specific problem for cod and whiting. As I have said, the December Council was disappointing, but we have taken on board some of the work done by the fishing organisations. I pay tribute to their work. One element that was never a starter was a proposal that the net size should be 90 mm diameter with an 80 mm panel. I have made it clear in the past and I make it clear again that it was never going to carry the day. It is far too minimalist to be able to carry the day in Scotland.

Mr. Frank Doran: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

Mr. Curry: No. I am addressing the specific point.
I have said in the past that, if one is serious about conservation, when the present rules are based on a 90 mm diameter diamond mesh, it is not credible to suggest that the principal measure of control should be a 90 mm mesh with merely an 80 mm panel. I do not deny that there would be conservation benefits, but they would not be sufficient.

Mr. Doran: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No. I am not giving way further, because I do not want to eat up other people's time.
The conservation priorities and the importance of conservation led us to contemplate unilateral action. That is why we have gone out to consultation, which will finish at the end of this week, on the introduction of a 90 mm mesh with a 90 mm panel, which will have a commensurately greater benefit. The object of that is principally to benefit haddock. There is a big year class of haddock out there and it is important to ensure that the stock is not pounded.
If people are serious about conservation, I hope that they will welcome the proposals. We are serious about conservation, and one cannot have conservation and everyone's traditional fishing patterns simultaneously. The two do not go together. It is important to be serious about conservation. We cannot wait for ever in the hope that we shall get some sort of decision out of Brussels, when we know how intolerably slow it is to reach agreement in the Council of Ministers. We cannot see our stocks simply keel over while we are still arguing about the number of boats—

Mr. Doran: rose—

Mr. Curry: No, I have already said that I shall not give way. I have been generous in accepting interventions.
Some people will criticise the unilateral character of the proposals, but we have 87 per cent. of the North sea haddock stock and 80 per cent. of the west coast haddock stock. The fishery is predominantly ours, and responsibillity for conserving it is predominantly in our hands. If we decide to go ahead after the consultations, we shall probably apply the changes from 1 July.
We are also proposing a 70 mm square panel in a 70 mm mesh in the prawn and nephrops fishery, to cut the by-catch of small fish. We are out to save the small haddock, as many of them are caught in that fishery. I understand that some Scottish organisations would be willing to see a larger panel size in the nephrops fishery and we shall look at any such proposals sympathetically to see


if we can go further than our current proposals. It is important to ensure that that young year class of haddock grows to maturity.
There is a conservation problem in the Irish sea. That is an area where, frankly, in the past we have invented fish for political reasons. The allowable catches have been kept too high and politics has overruled science. We are still arguing in the Council that we should take the mesh sizes from 70 mm to 80 mm. We shall continue to press for that.
There is another issue that I should like to mention, because I know that hon. Gentlemen will be interested—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And Ladies.

Mr. Curry: I have no doubt that hon. Ladies will be especially interested. It relates to the Irish sea fishery for cod, haddock and saithe. We have now decided on the basis of the allocation for the 1991 track records. We have concluded that the 1990 track record is not a reliable basis for the allocation of entitlement. Therefore, the allocations will be based on the track records in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.
On the distant water fishery—

Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Curry: Very well.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend has said about the track record. Does that mean that the way is now clear for the introduction of sectoral quotas in the south-west in particular? My hon. Friend will be aware that it was the unreliability of those track records—they were based on cheating by certain elements of the fleet —that impacted on the introduction of such sectoral quotas.

Mr. Curry: I was careful in the phraseology I used to explain why we had decided to proceed on the said basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is much more prudent for me to retain that phraseology; I shall deal with his detailed question by correspondence so that I can give him the reassurance he seeks.
The distant water fishery will be of interest to Humberside. We shall shortly announce the allocations in the Greenland waters, which will be significantly better than the entitlements of last year. That should assist the fleet in that area, which, in all fairness, suffered most of all from the 200-mile limits and the closure of the traditional distant deep sea water fishery.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked about quota hoppers. He will know that we are in the thick of a European Court case on this and the pleas have been made to the Advocate-General in the Factortame case. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have fought this case vigorously and we are still fighting it. A number of European countries have supported us, and the Germans made an oral presentation in our support.
As the case is under way, I do not want to comment on it, but it is our intention that we should be able to sort this matter out on a basis that maintains for the United Kingdom, the principle of direction and control from the United Kingdom, as that is extremely important.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is a clear national interest involved, and Ministers have argued that in the case before

the courts. I welcome the overseas support we have received. Can the Minister say whether a resolution of the matter will soon be reached?

Mr. Curry: We settled certain issues with the Spanish interests rather than pursuing those matters through the courts, because we felt that we could do so in an advantageous way for the United Kingdom. I am confident that we have a substantial case in our favour regarding Factortame that resides in the essential principles of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been defending in the European Court. Our case has the sympathy of a number of member states, because they recognise the problem.
It is fair to say that, when the Community devised the common fisheries policy, it intended that a major management responsibility should remain with the member states. We believe that that is by far the most sensible way in which to run the policy. We want to continue in that manner after the review year of that policy.
Let me make it clear now, as I have made it clear umpteen times in the past, that our objection to decommissioning has nothing to do with the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows that I have made that clear many times. Our objections have nothing to do with the Committee's criticisms of the previous scheme. I have said that ad infinitum in the past, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
We object to decommissioning, because we do not believe that it represents value for money. It is not the best way in which to tackle the problems in the fisheries. It considers the problem from the point of view of tonnage rather than catching capacity, which varies dramatically between vessels. We would not necessarily catch the vessels exerting the greatest pressure on the stocks. The motion talks about targeting, but does one target the vessels that make the least catching effort, which would be expensive, or the most effective vessels, which would be a funny way in which to run a scheme? If one took the most effective and modern boats out of service, it would be difficult to justify one's wish for a modern and effective fleet in the future.
One could take out some boats judged on capacity. If one were willing to spend hundreds of millions, one could take out a measurable capacity, but the remaining boats would then increase their efforts. Therefore, one would risk the imposition of a whole new raft of restrictions and regulations to stop that happening.
We believe that there are better ways of going about decommissioning. We should try to free up a rigid and deterministic, monolithic system in the fisheries. We have already introduced measures on capacity aggregation that will particularly help the producer organisations. We have made other proposals to the industry about the ability to amalgamate entitlements. We want a constructive and sensible debate with the industry on that. I am willing to enter such discussions, but the industry must be willing to see a freer, more market-oriented system—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Market forces.

Mr. Curry: No, I said a "market-oriented system"; there is a deep distinction between the two.
The industry representatives cannot just say that they want a system based on decommissioning alone. We are


renegotiating the multi-annual guidance programme targets at the Commission's request to move to a system of registered tonnage. It is not our idea, but everyone else has undertaken that practice. We hope to be able to reach a conclusion on that. Hon. Members who now argue that our fleet is a long way from target may have to rework some of their arithmetic when we reach agreement.
In 1990, there was a small reduction of 3 per cent. in the size of the registered fleet. We do not know whether that is a blip or a trend, but, clearly, it would be helpful if it were a trend. We have tightened the licensing rules to limit increases in the number of vessels and to prevent increasing capacity.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has spoken about the difficulty of targeting. Does he accept that the industry is willing to discuss how an effective, targeted decommission scheme could he introduced? The Minister, in common with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, should at least have the courtesy to "rule nothing in and rule nothing out", and he should talk to industry representatives on that specific matter.

Mr. Curry: I have talked frequently to the industry on a range of matters. I think that the industry will accept that my door is and always has been open. Decommissioning is not and will not be our policy. There are better ways of going about it. I am willing to discuss those with the industry and I want to have a sensible discussion about them.
It is not all gloom in fishing. There is a specific crisis involving cod and haddock. We have to take action, and we will not shirk it. I will not fall into the trap laid by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland of saying that earnings are escalating and that there is no problem. Of course there are problems for fishermen when opportunities decrease. The position is more buoyant than that of the farming industry which we discussed in the previous debate.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend suggested other methods apart from decommissioning to help reduce the size of fleets. If they are not effective and if we do not get decreases in the size of fleets in areas where we want to see them, will he reconsider a decommissioning scheme?

Mr. Curry: I would want to see evidence of the fishing industry's willingness to engage in a sensible discussion of the proposals that we have made. I have been asked whether I am willing to meet the industry to discuss decommissioning. I should like the industry to come to see me to discuss our proposals.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Curry: I am not giving way. I am almost at the end of my speech. I have had rather a long innings and it is my second innings of the day. Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I am not getting double time.
The motion is silly. There is a crisis of over-fishing, but there is not one word in the motion about discipline or about the fact that the industry has to exercise discipline itself; there is not one word about the taxpayer, or about the marketplace, or about the reality of EC negotiations. The motion is opportunistic, weak and irrelevant. I urge my hon. Friends to reject it.

8 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the continuing crisis in the fishing industry. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was in Shetland last year, when I spoke to John Goodlad, of the Shetland Fishermen's Association. I appreciated the discussions that I had with him. I thought that his proposals and his attitude said a great deal for the responsibility of fishermen for their own industry and their concern for it.
As in the previous debate, apart from the background issues, prevailing economic policy has a bearing. Fishermen are affected by high interest rates and suffer pressure because of the markets in which they have to compete without support. The Labour party does not see the debate as a substitute for a debate on the statutory instrument which proposes the eight-day rule and which is being prayed against by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends.
The major factors facing fishermen are linked with a need for conservation. We do not disagree with the action that has to be taken to protect fish stocks and to ensure that we have a sustainable industry, but it is becoming ever clearer that conservation measures cannot be separated from structural measures in dealing with those objectives.
The Minister's recent announcement that boats will have the option, apart from the eight-day lie-up, of using 110 mm mesh may have got him off the hook, so to speak, in respect of the great injustice that was being done to boats which traditionally had larger mesh sizes, even larger than the 120 mm mesh for which the Commission was asking. I accept that boats pursuing a mixed fishery still have a major problem. I add my voice to the comments of the Scottish mixed fishery, which has suggested a series of measures, including the one-net rule and tighter control. It has acted responsibly and rationally, and it wants to work with the Ministry.
It is unfair to rule completely out of hand, as the Minister appeared to do, the proposal for the 80 mm square mesh and the 90 mm diamond mesh. That proposal is worthy of extensive sea trials. The evidence which has been collected needs to be evaluated. Although the Commission may be reluctant to consider it, I do not see anything wrong with an extensive sea trial to examine the effectiveness of the proposal and analyse it in a proper scientific way. Adjustments might be necessary, but the proposal is worthy of serious consideration and it should not be dismissed out of hand.
In the discussion in the House last December, disappointment was voiced because the Minister did not make proposals for decommissioning. I accept that we need to take an overall approach to decommissioning within the European Community, but, from what other countries are doing, it seems that only this country has set its face against a decommissioning scheme. I wonder how many times we have to come to the House to ask for a scheme and for some progress.
The Minister said that he does not believe that a decommissioning scheme is value for money. That contradicts what he has said in previous debates. It was certainly within the realms of possibility for his civil servants to bring forward a decommissioning scheme,


targeted at the boats and areas which should be included in a scheme which would give value for money and would reduce the pressure on fish stocks.
Recently I met Mr. Michael Holden, who retired last year as head of the conservation unit in the European Commission's directorate-general for fisheries. He is an expert on fisheries conservation. I talked to him about conservation techniques and management. It soon became apparent from his comments that the key to conservation of fish stocks in the North sea was a reduction of effort. While we may bring in various technical measures which may be welcome and useful, it does not get away from the fact that we need to reduce effort. His opinion was the same as that of the majority of hon. Members, who believe that the only way to reduce effort in the North sea is to have a sensible and rational decommissioning scheme. The Government are completely isolated in their opposition to such a scheme.
There is grave doubt that the eight-day proposal would meet the requirements of the Government in reducing effort. What will happen is that the fishing boats which are forced to tie up for eight days will make an increased effort to make up for lost income when they go to sea. The potential for lost income is severe.
It is also worth pointing out that the vessels affected would account for only 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom cod and haddock quota over a two-year period. That makes one wonder whether such a measure is effective.
When skippers have to tie up for eight days and cannot pay their crews, it is logical that the crews will go to other boats or find other occupations. When the lie-up period is over, a skipper may have difficulty in getting a crew or in retaining his original crew. Worst of all, the eight-day rule will put pressure on skippers to put to sea in bad weather. Fishermen cannot control the weather. The eight-day rule might require skippers to tie up during good weather, which might mean that they would have to go to sea in bad weather in order to earn enough income to pay for their boats and crew.
In 1989, 22 fishing vessels were lost in bad weather, and a further 576 reported accidents were associated with bad weather. I would not want to be responsible for any measure which would put pressure on fishermen to risk their lives and the lives of their crews. I believe that the eight-day tie-up rule would put pressure on them.
I am surprised that we have not heard the argument about the way in which reduced catches increase prices. There is evidence of growing consumer resistance. The recession is partly to blame. A recent survey among household purchasers showed a decline in the last quarter in white fish purchasing.
We have seen no progress in achieving a reduction in the size of the British fleet. The recent 3 per cent. to which the Minister referred is negligible compared with reductions achieved in the fleets of other countries. As they reduce their fleets, they become eligible for grants for modernisation and restructuring, which will eventually work against the interests of our fishermen's competitiveness.
The type of decommissioning scheme that might be introduced is completely in the hands of the Government. They could structure the scheme to meet the criteria they want. For example, a decommissioning scheme could be

aimed at vessels with pressure stock licences or those of a certain age and size, or by the use of other criteria. A scheme using various methods could be adopted to reduce the pressure on stocks.
One wonders how often we must raise these issues before something is done. One also wonders whether the Minister is using bankruptcy as a way of reducing effort. Is that what it is all about? Is the eight-day tie-up simply a screen to cover the fact that the Minister refuses to introduce a decommissioning scheme, so that, when he talks about the market approach, he is really talking about bankruptcy—of fishermen being forced to go out of business?
That would not of itself reduce pressure on fish stocks. When a fisherman goes bankrupt and there is a chance for someone to buy a cheap fishing boat that is lying idle in the harbour, someone will chance his arm and try to make a living with that boat. That involves the boat going out to sea again, with pressure being kept on fish stocks.
The case has been made in the House time and again for the introduction of a decommissioning scheme. We have not yet had a proper answer explaining why the Government are absolutely resolute in not introducing such a scheme. It is not as though they are having great success in dealing with the problem with their present policies. We shall not achieve progress until we link a whole package of conservation measures—the fishermen are prepared to work towards meeting the management of fish stocks, because it is in their interest to do so—because we cannot separate conservation measures from structural measures if we are to achieve real progress in reducing pressure.
There must be a decommissioning scheme. The Minister will eventually come to recognise that and put such a scheme before the House. The trouble is that by that time many fishermen will have gone bankrupt, many families will have suffered and the British fishing industry will have been put at a disadvantage compared with its main rivals in Europe.

Sir Michael Shaw: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in this short debate. Not long ago, we had another short debate on the fishing industry. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whom I congratulate on tabling the motion, even though I cannot support him, will achieve his ambition of a full day's debate in which we can discuss the whole scene affecting the fishing industry.
I shall concentrate on the eight-day tie-up. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was right to emphasise at the outset the importance of the fabric of the fishing communities in the various fishing ports around the country. That applies in my area, with its ports of Whitby and Scarborough, as it applies to his and the constituencies of other hon. Members all the way up the north-east coast. The effect of the new option will also benefit the north-east coast, rather than the area from the Humber southwards, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has asked me to apologise for his absence. He is in bed with the 'flu.
The timing of the debate is happy. The fishermen in my constituency, like fishermen the country over, had expressed great concern about the effect of the eight-day tie-up. Indeed, they threatened to do all sorts of things. I


met them and said that, although I supported them whole-heartedly, I could not condone any action that caused an infringement of the law. They told me that that was the last thing they wanted, but I was left in no doubt about the concern they felt.
There are 17 boats in Whitby, but we must bear in mind not only the boats but the whole infrastructure of the fishing industry. Frankly, if those boats had to tie up for eight days solid, the harbour would go dead for eight days, and that would have a disastrous effect on the fleet.
I emphasise that, although they expressed great concern, those fishermen are a law-abiding community. They felt desperate about their plight. For that reason, when they heard the news this morning that an option was being given for an increased mesh size rather than the eight-day tie-up, they were delighted. That goes for the fishermen of Whitby and Scarborough. On their behalf and mine, and the fishing organisations, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a solution so quickly. I congratulate his officials and the good will of the Commission on this occasion. I had experience of dealing with the Commission some years ago, and I know how matters move extremely slowly in that circle. It is a credit to the Minister to have been able to achieve this result so quickly. It has brought great relief to Whitby and Scarborough.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was ungenerous. Even for those in opposition, when Ministers achieve a good result, with success from their efforts abroad, they deserve to be congratulated. I hope that the House will not be stingy in congratulating the Minister on his success.

Mr. Morley: I agree that credit should be given where it is due, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that boats that use large mesh and boats that fish with long lines should never have been caught up in the first place in the eight-day rule?

Sir Michael Shaw: Yes, and I am sure that the Minister would agree. But it was not his decision in the first place—[Interuption.] It was a decision of the Community. There had to be an agreement in the end. The Minister did his best to lessen the impact of the rule. From the agreement, unsatisfactory though it was, we achieved the opt-out provision afterwards. I believe that we achieved the best deal we could. We have had an assurance on the matter from the Minister, and we were indeed lucky to have had our present Ministers negotiating for us. I support them 100 per cent. and believe that they are doing an excellent job for the British fishing fleet. I accept that we have not got all we wanted, but one never gets all one wants when one has to negotiate.

Mr. Wilson: I vividly recall the hon. Gentleman taking a very critical line in our last debate about what his hon. Friends were proposing, and his finding a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House. Apparently, a solution has been found—a solution that suits his local fishermen. Can he not widen his vision once again and appreciate that a solution that deals with his local problem is not adequate to deal with the wider problem? Will he devote at least part of his speech to a more global approach to the British fishing industry?

Sir Michael Shaw: I hope that there will be such a debate very shortly, when we will be able to debate other matters. The Minister has already given us an assurance

that he will continue to negotiate, and that the negotiations will include new and constructive ideas. In the end, what we need to discuss, and what I hope to discuss for a few moments tonight, is the need for conservation.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I should like my hon. Friend to reflect on the fact that what has been agreed is a conservation measure, whereas what is proposed by some sectors of the industry outside his own port is the ability to continue to fish, without conservation measures. That is what those sectors want, whereas we fought for conservation measures—measures which, by their nature, are bound to be more difficult.

Sir Michael Shaw: The last point that I made was very close to the one that the Minister has just made.
Why should my fishermen welcome the change? Undoubtedly, the increased mesh size will make fishing more difficult. That is understood by everybody, including the fishermen. However, it will allow boats to go to sea at times judged by the fishermen to be suitable. For all the reasons that I gave the last time we discussed this matter —reasons to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred since then—that is a great advantage. One has to bear in mind the dangers that are involved. A serious accident just this week showed what can happen in difficult sea conditions.
But, above all, the change that has come out of Brussels allows for better conservation. As I understand it, the eight-day rule does not achieve any improvement in conservation. Let me explain the situation as I understand it. Obviously, fishermen will go out in all weathers to do their best to catch their quotas. Some of them will run risks. If they do not achieve their quota, the difference will be available to other boats in their area, or, if it cannot be taken up in their area, in other areas of the United Kingdom. If that is indeed the case, the full quota will be caught one way or another—but it will be caught in the old way, and the same discards will still apply. Thus, there will be no saving.
Under the new scheme, with the bigger-mesh net, the number of discards will be reduced. Immature fish will not be caught, or, if they are caught, they will escape without damage. As we all know, the trouble about discards is that most of them die. As things are at present, too large a proportion of future years' catches are being destroyed. For a long time, my fishermen have been pressing for a change in mesh size. What would otherwise be discards will now go through the nets easily, and the fish will be able to grow for future catches. This is a great boon. It is a cause for great satisfaction to my fishermen. I hope that the Minister, in future negotiations, will be able to tackle the other problems that have been discussed.
I end by thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has done on behalf of my fishermen, and by wishing him well in the negotiations that I understand will take place next April.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Like other hon. Members, I welcome this debate, but, again like other hon. Members, I think that it would be absolutely disgraceful if a debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats were to be used in any way as an excuse not to have a specific debate and a vote on the life-threatening eight-day continuous


tie-up measure and the statutory instrument that imposes it. I hope that, when the junior Minister winds up, he will give us an unequivocal guarantee that such a debate will be held as soon as possible.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland wound up in the last fisheries debate, many other hon. Members and I suspected that he was not quite sure what the 10-day rule that applied then actually involved. He said:
That seems another sensible measure which is worth considering in the context of the need to conserve stocks.".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1223.]
Many of us suspected that he did not understand the full implications of the continuous band that was being proposed.
When I read his current views in yesterday's Aberdeen Evening Express, I became absolutely convinced that, even now, the Secretary of State for Scotland does not appreciate the implications and the dangers of the tie-up regulations. The Evening Express quotes him as having said of the fishermen:
They actually have more freedom now than under the previous system, when they were limited to a certain number of days at sea.
That is a quite extraordinary description of a regulation that inevitably constrains fishermen's freedom and their livelihood.
But on the same day, this article entitled "No Turning Back" appeared. Perhaps it was written by the junior Minister. The DAFS secretary of fisheries wrote to a constituent of mine, Mr. Bill Farquhar, who is chairman of the Boatbuilders Association, describing the regulations as
the stricter arrangements this year whereby vessels are required to stay in port.
So, on the very day on which the Secretary of State for Scotland described these proposals as introducing "more freedom", his own departmental fisheries secretary told a constituent of mine that these are "stricter arrangements" than those that applied last year. We are entitled to know who is misleading whom in the Scottish Office. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland misleading his own fisheries secretary, or are the civil servants misleading the Secretary of State?
Even more important was what the Secretary of State for Scotland was to write elsewhere in the same article. The fishermen, he said,
should never be forced out in bad weather, and I don't believe it will be necessary.
That betrays the most fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the tie-up regulations for Scottish fishing. It is inevitable, under the eight-day continuous tie-up rule, that fishermen will be pushed to sea in rough weather. Of the first 90 available fishing days last year, no fewer than 38 had expected winds between gale force eight and storm force 10. The fishermen were already heavily constrained by the elements. It is inevitable that, under the eight-day continuous tie-up regulations, fishermen will maximise the remaining days and go to sea even when good fishing judgment suggests that it would be better for them to stay in port. Because of the economic pressure on themselves, their boats and their families, they will have no choice whatsoever.
But there is another aspect of the danger of the tie-up regulations that must be understood by Ministers. I am thinking of a situation that might arise when boats are

actually at sea. At present, boats in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend tend to be fishing north-east. They will be encountering rough conditions, which can arise very quickly. When such conditions are encountered, the sensible thing is for a boat to turn its head to the sea and ride out the storm. But imagine circumstances that could well arise in the next few days or weeks.
Fishermen in that position might know that they were approaching the start of their statutory tie-up period and that, unless they got back to a registered port in time, they would face a fine of £50,000 for breach of the reglations. Under such economic pressure it will be inevitable that, instead of riding out the storm, which would be the sensible thing to do, some people will make a dash for port —[Interruption.]
I see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office shakes his head. I know that he has been briefed on fishing during the past few days, but if he disagrees with my analysis, which is shared by everyone in the fishing industry, he should come to the Dispatch Box and explain why we are wrong in believing that the regulations could be life-threatening.
If the Minister of State does not disagree with my analysis, he must accept that the regulations will jeopardise the lives of fishermen at sea. No Government or Administration have the moral right to impose on fishermen legislation making their lives, which are already dangerous, even more dangerous. There is a real prospect that, if the regulations are passed unamended, people in the Treasury and the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland could end up with blood on their hands over the next few weeks and months. That must be understood.
Apart from the principle of the consecutive tie-up, the enforcement that we have seen has been vindictive. No short sea trials of repairs to engines are being allowed. No oil contract work is being allowed when a fishing boat is tied up. Fishing boats are not allowed to go back to their home ports. As hon. Members know, it is common in the north-east of Scotland for boats to land at Peterhead or Aberdeen and, a few days later, to sail back the short distance to their home port at Fraserburgh, Macduff or Lossie. Even those small trips are regarded as a breach of the tie-up regulations. They have already been described not as a tie-up but as a curfew that is being imposed on the fishing industry. If the Government impose a curfew, they must expect a fishing intifada as the industry's response.
Tie-up regulations have implications for social cohesion and discrimination against the Scottish boats. Of the boats affected by the tie-up, 400 are from Scotland and 75 from England and Wales. The regulations affect more boats from Scotland than from the rest of the European Community put together. However, the option of a regulation of under 110 mm has relevance for few if any of the Scottish boats, because one cannot pursue a mixed haddock and whiting fishery with a 110mm net. No fisherman will take up that option if he is pursuing haddock-whiting fishing.
There is a danger of a total breakdown of confidence in the relationship between fishermen and those who administer the industry. The tragedy is that the measure and configuration of nets that would provide a way out of the crisis is available, backed by the scientific evidence that has been accumulated during the past few years. The sea trials on the Sunbeam demonstrate that the 90mm


diamond configuration, with an 80 square-mesh panel, is the way to balance the needs of conservation with the entitlement of fishermen to protect their livelihoods.
I see that the Minister of State is having some trouble following the debate. Perhaps he will pay attention and explain why the results of the Sunbeam trials, which show an increase of 31 per cent. in the escape of young haddock and of 46 per cent. in the escape of young whiting, do not provide adequate evidence to show that the 90 mm/80 mm square mesh configuration is the way forward. Almost a year ago, my hon. Friends and I met the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, who was then convinced that that configuration was the right one. As the scientific evidence that has been accumulated supports that configuration, what has happened in the intervening period to change the Minister's mind? Why is he now renouncing his belief in that configuration?
I understand that there are to be sea trials in the Orkney boat Keila, which will use a 90 mm/90 mm mesh configuration. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that those trials, when they start in March, will also include the 90 mm/80 mm square mesh configuration to see which net and mesh configuration is best to meet the demands of conservation, and reconcile them with the rights of fishermen to pursue their livelihoods? If the Minister does not believe in the 90 mm/80 mm configuration, why not put it to the test in the sea trials that are to be undertaken during the next few months?
The fisheries Minister argues that the 90mm/80mm option would not be supported by the rest of the European Community. He implies that, if the matter were left to him, it would be an option, but he would never get it past the beaurocrats in Brussels. There is a way to unlock the door so that that conservation option is a possibility.
In suggesting the way, I shall refer to an article by the respected commentator Tony Mackay in Scotland on Sunday on 10 February. Returning from a trip to meet European officials, he wrote:
last week in Brussels when I met officials from the EC Fisheries Directorate on studies we are undertaking for them, it was obvious that the commission's fisheries staff are sympathetic to the difficulties facing the Scottish fishing and fish processing industries, and are trying hard to find fair and acceptable solutions to these problems. The believe that they are seriously constrained by lack of co-operation from UK Government bodies, including the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Sea Fish Industry Authority in Edinburgh.
Is it not entirely possible that, if the Government would fall into line with every other state in the European Community and adopt a positive attitude towards structural policy and decommissioning, they would find that what they see as hindrances to the technical conservation measures would suddenly disappear? If the Government could make their contribution to the European Community, would not they find that the European officials would realise that that was the way forward for the Scottish fishing industry?
Why on earth should Europe not wish to see the 90 mm/80 mm square-mesh panel? We know that haddock is an overwhelmingly United Kingdom fishery—indeed, a largely Scottish fishery. Why should there be opposition within the European Community to a measure on the haddock fishery, pursued by the Scottish fishing industry?
In previous debates, I have referred to the substantial disadvantage that the Government's negative attitude towards structural policy places on Scottish fishermen and

the competitive position of our fishermen relative to other fleets. No less than £150 million has been poured into other European fishing industries over three years. How on earth can our industry compete when no financial structural support has been given to the United Kingdom and Scottish fleet over that period because of the Government's obdurate attitude towards decommissioning?
There is a substantial suspicion, not just among Opposition Members, that the basic reason why the Government have set their face against decommissioning is to save the face of the Minister of Agriculture, who had responsibility during the debacle six or seven years ago when decommissioning money was literally poured up the Humber with no controls. Instead of continuing with a refusal that jeopardises the livelihoods of Scottish fishermen and endangers the survival of the fishing industry, let us have some sensible, structural and conservation measures. We reject this dangerous, perverse, punitive and life-threatening eight-day tie-up, on which the Government seem to have set their hearts.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It would be remiss of us to allow the debate to pass without paying tribute to the late Gilbert Buchan. He was a most distinguished former president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and he died two weeks ago. He was respected in the industry, throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe, and, having worked with him in European Community negotiations, I can say that I know few people who were more truly leaders or more loyal friends than he. I am sure that I speak for many in the House when I say that. I also know few people who were tougher negotiators than he was, as former Ministers will testify, but the great thing about Gilbert was that when he made an agreement he stuck to it, and one knew where one was with him at all times.
It would be remiss of me not to mention his service to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve with the minesweepers in the war, during which he was decorated for gallantry. That reminds us all of the role that our fishermen have, in a wider strategic sense, in the long-term defence of this country. I know that all hon. Members will join me in sending sympathy to his wife Jessie and members of his family.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) not only for taking the opportunity to initiate this debate but for his contribution to it, which I regarded as reasonable, sensible and based on the practical common sense of the industry.
I should like to take up two small points from the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that, following the new mesh arrangements negotiated this week, he would amend the statutory instrument on the tie-up rule, which we shall, I hope, shortly be able to debate. I was not aware that statutory instruments could be amended. Surely a new statutory instrument will be involved. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that technical point for us. We want to know whether we shall have the opportunity to debate the two statutory instruments, taken together.
The second point is more substantial. I smiled wryly to myself when the Minister said that our enforcement of fishing conservation measures was the most effective in


Europe. In one sense he was right to take credit for that, but I should not like to leave it at that without discussing the downside of our effective conservation measures—that they are less fair to our fishermen because our enforcement of them is more effective. We want a "level sea" in relation to competition with Europe. So let us not ignore the results of this effective enforcement.
The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that, because conservation measures are not perceived to be applied fairly across Europe, that adds to the sense of frustration and desperation among our fishermen, who see fishermen from other countries getting away with avoiding these conservation measures because they are not properly enforced. So our fishermen have more bitter experience of some of the consequences of these measures than their European counterparts.
My hon. Friend said that we needed to achieve a 30 per cent. cut in our fishing effort. I do not know whether that figure is right, but I know that we need a cut. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation made a major contribution to a number of practical and sensible measures, incorporated in their 1988 proposals, to achieve conservation that will help to limit the fishing effort. We must ask whether some of the measures introduced since the 1988 proposals are sensible or practical. If they are to be observed and sensibly enforced, we must ensure that they are practical, because only can they be effective.
I regard the tie-up rule as patent nonsense. It is utterly artificial. I said that in the December debate and I say it again now. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. I know that an overall settlement was imposed on him, and I pay tribute to the way in which he fought against it; but now that it has been imposed on us, I hope that he will not let up in trying to have it removed or alleviated before too much damage is done to our fishing industry.
The tie-up measure wholly fails to recognise everyday practical circumstances with which fishermen have to contend, such as the weather. It is riddled with anomalies, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said: fishermen having to sail from their port of landing to their home port and being counted as having spent a day at sea. Nor should we underestimate the social and human consequences, not only for those in the industry but for their families. They have enough stress to cope with without having artificial stress imposed on them as well.
As for mesh sizes, I welcome in principle the alternative to the tie-up rule that my hon. Friend achieved in Brussels this week. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), because this will be a real practical help to fishermen in his area fishing for cod. However, my hon. Friend must recognise that the new measure is not a practical alternative to the tie-up rule for those fishing for haddock and whiting. That is why I said that I welcomed the move in principle—because I hope that it will reopen the debate on mesh sizes. My hon. Friend must recognise that what has been negotiated so far will not have a practical application for the Scottish fishing fleet, I urge him to negotiate something better for Scottish fishermen along the same lines.
I was a little disappointed by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who dismissed the 90 mm net with the 80 mm

square mesh on the panel at the end. I agree that the number of fish caught may be the same, but my right hon. Friend must not forget the smaller fish that escape and add to stocks in future years. That is the message to send to Brussels. This is a conservation measure that will effectively safeguard the future of our fishery stocks—if that is what we truly want, and I do.
I am glad that further consultations are being held with the industry on this matter. I hope that they will be constructive and that both sides will come to them with open minds to reach a compromise—perhaps on a 90/90mm; and that progress in Europe will be achieved. If it is, it could greatly assist the conservation effort and as such it will be well worth while—

Mr. Salmond: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, with his ministerial experience, would support the view that there is enormous attraction in going for a conservation measure which works and which also carries the wholehearted support of the people who will have to operate it—the fishermen.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I said a few moments ago that if measures are sensible and practical they are easier to enforce and much more likely to be observed. That is why they are more effective. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support on that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was right in what he said about structure. We cannot separate structure from other conservation measures which are part of the overall scheme to bring about a reduction in fishing effort. To neglect or dismiss it, as Ministers often do, is like trying to fight for the industry with one hand tied behind one's back. We will not get effective conservation or build an efficient and effective British fishing industry if we do not show much more readiness to tackle structure.
The blockage in the Minister's mind arises from past scars for which the industry is having to pay the penalty. What about consistency? Is structure being ignored in the discussions on agriculture in Europe? Of course not. Structure is one of the major elements submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Structural policy is a major element in negotiations on agriculture, but our Government are the only Government in Europe who turn their back on structure in the fishing industry. It does not make sense, and it is not in the best interests of the fishing industry or Britain.
The Minister said that his opposition had nothing to do with previous schemes. I accept what he says about that, and will not try to deal with it now. The circumstances were different. I endorse what he said about tackling tonnage and fishing capacity and trying to make sure that they are targeted. Nobody denies that problems exist, but they are not beyond the wit of civil servants or Ministers to resolve. I agree that a system has to be linked to a strict licensing scheme, so that capacity is not knocked out in one place only to reappear in another. It is possible to have a disciplined structure. Fishing is a hunting industry, whereas agriculture is about husbandry. Inevitably, Governments intervene in a thousand ways, such as laying down rules about days at sea and tying up and mesh size.
I wish that we did not have a hang-up about decommissioning, because it prevents us from tackling the structure of the industry. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Scottish Office to bear in mind the


consequences of turning our back on structure. When we do that, we lose one of the major methods of gearing our fishing effort to available stocks. That is the most important benefit we lose, but we lose two others. We lose grants which are available to every other country in Europe, and I do not see why our industry should be denied such grants.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, other Governments and other industries are amazed at our attitude. It does not do us any good because other Governments and industries which use structural measures to reduce their fishing effort say to our fishermen, "What are your Government doing to reduce your effort?" Our fishermen know that such measures are effective in other countries and that makes them much less supportive of measures that we propose, such as 90/80 mm or 90/90 mm mesh sizes.
In a major area, we must not turn our backs on an important tool. By doing such things we deny ourselves support. Nobody knows better than I do that we cannot win battles on our own in Europe. We have to have allies, and it is stupid to deny ourselves allies to achieve some of the other good measures upon which all hon. Members agree.
I make no apology for speaking at length on decommissioning and structure. I hope that the other measures that we have discussed will work. However, as I said earlier, they are only part measures. We have to add structures, and only if we are prepared to do that will we see more effective conservation of our fish stocks and a more stable future for our fishing industry and fishing communities.

Mr. Frank Doran: In the three and a half years that I have been in the House and attending fishing debates, I have noted the remarkable consistency of the subjects and the way that they have been dealt with. There is unanimity about the interests and importance of our fishing industry, but no progress seems to have been made. Confrontation hovers over the quotas, which are outwith the hands of the House and are decided in Brussels. No progress is made on issues such as decommissioning, conservation and structure that could be implemented here. That is despite our unanimity of purpose because we all want to see a thriving and safe industry playing its part in the national economy and, in my case, its important part in the economy of the Grampian region.
It is not difficult to see why we fail to make progress. The Minister repeated the standard Government position on decommissioning. It seems that they got their fingers burned once before and are not prepared to try again. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) put his finger on the issue much more effectively than I can, because he was a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I was dismayed to hear the Minister dismiss so readily the ideas of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation for the 90 mm diamond mesh net and the 80 mm square mesh window. As the Minister well knows, a great deal of research has been carried out into the operation of that system. I understand that the experiments carried out by the marine laboratory in my constituency involved the Sunbeam, a Shetland-based vessel, and produced quite

staggering results. For example, they showed that there is a discard rate of 46 per cent. in the whiting catch. That is phenomenal. The discard rate for haddock was 31 per cent. A video is available and I hope to see it soon. I understand that it shows exactly how the fish react to that configuration of nets. That is a positive step towards conservation.
The same scientists discovered that the 90 mm diamond net and 90 mm square mesh window were not effective—not so much from the point of view of conservation because more fish escaped—in giving fishermen a marketable catch. The industry depends on a marketable catch for its survival. The Minister suggested the possibility of consultation on the introduction of a 90 mm square net window. We must consider the consequences of that development. If the work undertaken at the marine laboratory is valid, fishermen will have to spend even more time at sea to obtain the same size of catch, and their overheads will rise accordingly—as will the size of the risk that they must take.
We do not see any willingness on the Government's part to listen to valid arguments. The way forward is for all sides of the industry, the Government and the Ministry to sit down and talk with the fishermen. Obviously, hard positions are taken by both sides. The fishermen want to catch as much fish as they can, make as much money as they can, and pay for their boats as easily as they can. The Ministry has a wider interest.
In the current state of confrontation, it is difficult to see how progress can be made without a meeting of minds, to arrive at a consensus, so that the Government can make a case for the UK fishing industry with the backing of the fishermen themselves and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. At present, we seem only to react to what comes out of Brussels. If Commissioner Marin comes up with a proposal for a 120 mm net, we deem it to be a great victory if we achieve agreement on a 110 mm net. That is nonsense.
We are in a position to take the lead. Our fishermen want to be involved, and so should the Government. We ought to be taking the initiative. The fisheries are on our doorstep, and we have the largest interest in them, yet we are lagging behind in representing an industry that is crucial not only to the nation's well-being in terms of the food value that fish offers, but to the economy of areas such as that which I represent, where thousands of jobs depend on it.
I want to see more positive action from the Government. I would like to see them sitting down and listening rather than trying to impose their concept of the best way forward. There are many good ideas around, and the Government should be prepared to listen.
Fish processing is an aspect of the industry that is often ignored in our debates, because right hon. and hon. Members mostly represent the catching side of the industry. Aberdeen is a major fish processing centre. A report published by Grampian regional council for economic development and planning, "The Importance of Fishing to the Grampian Region", estimates that the fish processing sector provides employment for 4,500 people. It has been hard hit by the crisis in the industry and has suffered about 750 job losses over the past year, with 15 firms having closed.
The income enjoyed by fish catchers has remained relatively stable, although I know that inflation has affected them, too. However, those employed in fish


processing have been forced to cope with the huge price increases that are the consequence of lower catches. Over the past year, processors have paid 8 per cent. more for 14 per cent. less fish, which has had a huge impact on their business. For haddock alone, they pay 41 per cent. more. That filters through to produce the job losses to which I referred, as well as to the housewife, who must pay huge prices for the fish she buys from her fishmonger or supermarket. It is staggering to see haddock selling at a higher price than salmon, and at almost the same price as best steak. Haddock is a healthy and clean food, and we should encourage people to buy it—but high prices make that difficult to achieve.
The Government refuse to recognise the difficulties that the fish processing industry faces. It is currently attempting to gear itself up to meet new European hygiene regulations, which requires a mammoth investment, with the support of the Scottish Development Agency, local authorities in the Grampian region, and Aberdeen district council. They recognise that the industry must be modernised to meet European standards, most of which were set by the Torry research laboratory in my constituency. We know what will be the impact of those regulations.
The fishing industry is gearing up, but it is not being helped to adjust to the difficult period it faces. There is no unified structural approach to the industry, which, if it is indeed seen as a vital, essential part of the food industry as a whole, should surely receive the same support as farming.
I know that this is not entirely relevant to the debate, but, like other hon. Members, I have been lobbied by the salmon net fishermen. In 1988, the Government reduced the number of hours during which they were allowed to fish, which has taken many of them to the edge of bankruptcy. I spoke recently to a former trawlerman who had invested £100,000 in his business—his entire capital—and now finds that it is on the verge of closure.

Mr. Wilson: What has been done to Scotland's salmon net fishing industry is, in a sense, unique. The noose has been tightened, and men have been driven out of business for the specific purpose of enriching others who are pursuing the same fish. The Government have deliberately discriminated against an industry that is rooted in centuries of tradition in many parts of rural Scotland, to the benefit of another sector. Surely the least they can do is compensate those whom they have forced out of business, and I hope that they will belatedly do something for the salmon net fishermen who have been treated so grotesquely.

Mr. Doran: I agree. The downturn in the salmon net fishing business has nothing to do with the reduction in the number of fish, investment in new technology or anything of that nature; it is a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of fishing hours, which is itself a direct consequence of the Government's legislation. Nothing has been done to help those fishermen to adjust, although, in remote areas such as Caithness and Sutherland, they provide vital, albeit seasonal, employment. Businesses are going to the wall in those areas.
Fish—whether or not it is caught at sea—must be seen as a vital element of the wider industry. We want unity of approach, rather than the confrontational attitude that the Government have adopted so far.

Mr. David Porter: I too am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate, as my constituency contains the major port of Lowestoft. My delight ends there, however.
I feel a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of the Scottish amendment, which refers to "crisis in fishing". Like farming, the fishing industry is sometimes accused of crying wolf too often. Some may think that the current crisis represents more of the same, but I do not agree: the industry is crying wolf for real. For those with mortgages to pay, boat loans to service and businesses and families to maintain, the wolf is at the door.
This is, as much as anything, a crisis of confidence. The common fisheries policy is at the heart of it: it has taken the freedom to regulate the British fishing industry virtually out of the Government's hands, yet the Government still have to do some of the CFP's dirty work.
I instinctively incline to the school of thought that argues that the CFP should promptly be scrapped, but I take the point made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in a private discussion last week. I called the CFP a dog's breakfast; he—with his many years of wisdom and experience in the House—cautioned me about the dangers of replacing a dog's breakfast with a pig's dinner.
While that may be wise, there is no doubt that the CFP's conservation measures simply do not work. It is a failed system. Every year, the extent of that failure becomes more apparent: there are still too many out-of-date boats chasing too few fish, there is still alarming scientific evidence every year, and the chasms in confidence continue. Faced with failure of the system, we bolt on another piece of machinery. This year, it is the unloved eight-day tie-up, which we have heard so much about tonight. Next year what will it be? It may be a 22-day tie-up and an eight-day fishing rule.
There are all sorts of worries about the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend has an open door, listens well and speaks straight, but worries still linger about the even-handed application of quotas and all the other paraphernalia that surrounds the fishing industry. Any question addressed to him about the Dutch, the French, the Belgians or the Spaniards is ususally answered with the cry, "Enforcement in other countries is a matter for other national Governments." Yes, but it is all a question of confidence among British fishermen about what is happening in other countries. Can they be confident about the Spanish Government's commitment to enforcement while there is a Spanish Fisheries Commissioner? Their confidence is wafer-thin.
What hurt Lowestoft in particular was the sudden closure of fisheries before the end of the year. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food found that the full catch figures had been reached. Lowestoft's cod and sole fisheries were suddenly shut. Fishermen had been told only days before that everything was on target until the end of the year. One company alone in Lowestoft lost £333,000 due to the closure of the sole fishery. Confidence in the management of the regime is in short supply.
I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I too wish to return to the question of decommissioning. The alternative is British bankruptcies. We said last month and in December that decommissioning is not a magic answer, but it must surely help. I shall not rehearse again the arguments in favour of the scheme. All I would add is that a properly administered, financed and policed scheme would, in the first instance, have to be voluntary. Many Lowestoft fishermen do not want to leave the industry. Fishermen in other ports, however, might happily leave the industry if it were made worth their while to do so —if they could pay their debts and still have something left over.
Such a scheme would make payments to boat owners and fishermen, but fish merchants and other indirect employees in the industry could be wiped out by it. Thought must be given to a whole-industry approach when it comes to restructuring it. I hope that that will be borne in mind. Fish merchants want only to keep a reliable supply of good quality fish available to the housewife. Their task in Lowestoft is made much harder when the economics of the industry frequently obliges boats to land their catch in Holland rather than in Lowestoft.
Ministers have an unenviable task. They go to Council of Ministers meetings clutching the tattered trousers of the common fisheries policy around them. Too often our European, competitors strip the trousers off them. Consequently, they return naked from those meetings. When that happens, we cannot pretend that the CFP suit of clothes is wonderful. Those hon. Members who represent fishing ports have to play the little boy to the Minister's emperor and point out that there is nothing there—that it is a sham, a charade, a pantomime, if it were not so serious.
I shall not weary the House with my objections to the eight-day tie-up. What I have had to say about the CFP, however, leads me to a list of questions and doubts which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer in writing. Will he resist an EEC trend to amalgamate all directed fisheries in the interests of bureaucratic convenience? How are North sea fishermen and related workers—they total about 2,000 in Lowestoft alone—supposed to weather effort restriction, quota cuts and increases in mesh size all at once? What thought is being given to how these ideas relate to the real world at sea and the real world of the fish markets?
If we all recognise that limitation by quantity alone fails to tackle the problem—United Kingdom fishermen have taken major reductions over the last few years—at what point do the Government say that they are happy to allow bankruptcies to help them to achieve fleet reduction and that they are happy to let the Dutch take over the North sea? When is enough enough? No one looking at the European scene, particularly the Dutch fishing industry, foresees the Dutch retreating from the fishing scene.
We hear frequently from Scottish Members with fishing constituencies that Scotland faces serious difficulties. Those difficulties may not be exaggerated, but I am sorry to say that there is often little sympathy for Scottish fishermen in the English ports. Does not the fact that there is little sympathy for Scottish fishermen reflect the confrontational nature of the common fisheries policy? The confrontation can only get worse as the European Community grows bigger, particularly if Norway, Sweden and goodness who else joins. That confrontation governs the industry, which is already the most divided industry in

Britain. I remember only a couple of years ago talking to a group of angry inshore fishermen, complete with placards and banners, outside the Lowestoft fish laboratory gates. Two years ago, things were by no means as bad for them.
The Hague preference is often quoted as a wonderful device which triggers extra fish entitlement when total allowable catches fall low. It may be marvellous for Bridlington and ports northwards, but what about Lowestoft and ports south of that line? If the cod reductions invoke the Hague preference, will East Anglia be discriminated against again? Will the French get away with special derogation on mesh sizes in the southern North sea? If we go on horse-trading and quota-swapping with plaice, for example, because Lowestoft is not allowed a fleet big enough to catch its full quota, what guarantee is there that other EC Governments will not say, "Well, you didn't need it when you swapped it, so you don't need it in the future"?
What noises are we making about the former East German fleet, which is underused, inefficient and out of date? It is ideal, surely, for scrapping en bloc without any replacement.
At a time when Europeans could and should be eating more fish, the industry is facing not only the sea, but all the dead weight of the CFP, from surveillance to the transmission of catch data, and from licensing, through bycatches to technical measures. Can one wonder that there was a howl of derision last year when Mr. Marin claimed that the CFP was "theoretically perfect". Presumably, he meant that it was "theoretically perfect" in the same way that the community charge is "theoretically perfect".
During my remarks, I have mixed as many cliches as there are species in the sea. I want to end by saying to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is the blanket policy of the CFP that is so stifling. Every port, every section of the industry, every country and every species is different. The CFP must have the flexibility to reflect that. It must have it now or the crisis will destroy the entire industry.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As a conservationist who represents fishing interests in Northern Ireland, I am naturally concerned about the decimation of our fish stocks and their conservation, especially in the Irish sea. From a conservation point of view, I have a great interest in the long-line fishermen and believe that they have been unfairly treated under the Government's current conservation policy.
The selective nature of long-line fishing precludes almost exclusively catches of under-sized fish. As a conservation measure, the Government should encourage that type of fishing without restrictions. The problem facing the Government appears to be that there are too many boats fishing for too few fish. However, the Government should be aware that they have allowed the unrestricted building of boats of under 10 m which has considerably added to the tonnage. Many of those boats were not for established full-time fishermen, yet they are allowed to fish completely without restriction while established fishermen are losing their livelihood. A conservation policy that is directed only at certain fishermen and vessels is unfair and can never be successful.
There has been much discussion this evening about square mesh panels. I support their use as a conservation measure. Experiments with square mesh panels show conclusively that they have dramatically reduced the discards of immature fish. They have also caught better quality fish with less crushing, and have saved time and effort in sorting large quantities of under-sized fish.
I understand that the Government are planning the use of 90 mm panels for white fish and 70 mm panels for prawns, but trials with 90 mm mesh in the Irish sea fishery showed a fairly substantial loss of marketable whiting. From that we may deduce that 80 mm panels would be an acceptable compromise for white fish.
The prawn fishermen have also experienced beneficial effects on prawn catches, as well as a significant reduction in discarded fish. It appears that, whatever mesh is used in the panel, prawns will not be lost, so I am concerned that the Government are opting for 70 mm panels in prawn gear. The panel is there for the release of juvenile fish—the same fish that will be caught in the white fish gear—so I suggest that the Government should consider an 80 mm mesh for both white fish and prawns.
I have great sympathy for our fishermen who go to sea in all weathers to provide the fish for our consumption. I do not have the same feelings about those who deprive our sea bird population of the means of survival. I am referring to those who send thousands of tonnes of sandeels and other fish not considered suitable for human consumption to fishmeal factories to produce protein which is readily available from other renewable sources.
It is distressing for me to see gannets and herring-gulls squabbling over offal when these beautiful birds should be hunting their own food, which has been taken from them by the over-activity of boats concerned with fishmeal fishing. Other species of bird—notably puffins, kittiwakes and members of the skua family—are now seriously at risk because they have become incapable of reproducing due to the lack of food during the breeding season.
Conservation must go hand in hand with the fishing industry. Without one, there will not be the other.

Mr. David Harris: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak.
I want lo make four points. I hope that the first of them will not be taken the wrong way. This evening, I had a telephone call from a constituent who had seen on television our exchanges yesterday following the private notice question on the contingency arrangements—let us hope that it never happens—for the B52 bombers to drop their bombs unprimed in the Bristol channel. Unfortunately, some Opposition Members laughed at remarks made by Conservative Members who pointed out the possible danger to the fishing fleet. The channel is a main fishing ground. The laughter was open to misinterpretation, I am sure, but I hope that those Opposition Members who do not know the position of the fishing fleet and the dangers that it runs—there are none of them here tonight—will think again.

Mr. Wilson: Disgraceful.

Mr. Harris: I am only reporting the reaction of people in my constituency who watched our proceedings on

television. I shall not labour the point, but it should be put on record because all hon. Members in the Chamber tonight know the dangers that the fishing fleet faces.
Similarly, I hope that my second point will not open old wounds between the two sides of the House. It concerns the whole of question of misreporting. I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about correcting the bogus track record that certain Scottish boats had built up through misreporting. That question has been a feature of our last two fishing debates. I hope that that injustice will be put right. I was pleased that the Minister hinted—indeed, gave an assurance—that that would happen, because cheating and misreporting have undoubtedly hit fishermen in my area and in other areas of the United Kingdom.
My third point arises from the eight-day rule. There is a curious spin-off of that rule. Until today, it seemed that some boats from Scotland and the north of England that have been sold to fishermen in the south-west of England and which now operate exclusively in area 7, off the south-west, could still be caught by the eight-day rule even though they were not fishing in the areas affected by it. I was pleased today to receive a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister saying that one boat in my area would not be caught by the eight-day tie-up rule. Other boats may be affected. I know that there is one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm, perhaps in writing, that all boats affected in this way—there may be more—will be exempt from that provision.
My fourth point looks to the future. I look with considerable apprehension to the future on a topic that has hardly been touched on tonight—the mid-term review by the Commission of the common fisheries policy. The Commission has power to submit a report by the end of this year on the working of the CFP. I sound a warning note on that. It would be disastrous if the Commission used that mid-term review to open up the common fisheries policy in a way that is detrimental to Britain and its fishermen.
There have been two major developments since the introduction of the common fisheries policy. One is the accession of Spain to the European Community, with all the consequences of quota hopping. I welcome the remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister made on the way in which we fought the case against the Spaniards in the European Court of Justice.
Another more recent development is extremely worrying and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). He made passing reference to the reunification of Germany, and mentioned the position of what was formerly the East German fleet and the consequences that that will have. Again, I sound a warning that there could be wide repercussions on British fishermen if the issue is not handled properly. On that gloomy note, I shall finish and allow other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate has been too short to allow everyone who wished to speak to do so, but the House will acknowledge that it has been a valuable debate which has allowed, representatives of no fewer than six political parties to


discuss an industry whose predicament is recognised across the House. Its predicament requires exceptional measures, if it is not to be caught in a savage double bind of rising costs and contracting resources caused by falling stocks of fish. The diminution of our fishing industry will be at the expense of communities throughout our country, many in remote areas, with fragile economies which heavily depend on the fishing industry—not only fishermen and their families but the shore-based industries which service and depend on the fishing industry.
This is an important debate. It was also significant in that no disagreement was voiced during discussions between hon. Members on both sides of the House. A sharp difference of opinion was expressed with the Minister's remarks. Almost everyone who has spoken disagreed with him fundamentally, especially on the Government's attitude to the structural changes which are necessary if the British fishing industry is to survive this crisis.
The debate takes place against the background of severely increased costs for fuel, repairs and insurance and an increase in other costs which are necessarily incurred if the fleet is to be sustained, never mind replaced. One of the disturbing features of the industry is the prospect of an aging fleet because no one will be able to invest in modernisation.
I do not believe that the Government have measured up to the seriousness of the problem. They give the impression that they are running before the wind of opinion in Europe and are behind the European Commission in its attempts to tackle the difficulties of the industry. I welcomed yesterday's announcement of a modest change in the tie-up rule and the consequential change regarding the single net conservation measure that the Minister announced tonight. I am glad to learn about the new order and I hope that it will take into account some of the things that have been said in today's debate. If the scheme is not to be abandoned I hope that other changes will be made to its operation.
I particularly draw the Minister's attention to the great dissatisfaction in the fishing industry about the midnight to midnight aspect of the tie-up rule. Because of that, the eight-day period is effectively extended to nine or even 10 days. We have received representations on that, and a change should be made. If the Minister is not prepared to abandon the scheme, I hope that he will be prepared to consider a change to make the scheme run from midday to midday.
Tonight there was one monetary problem—perhaps it was a misunderstanding— when the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) referred to the mandatory tie-up scheme and said that the modification allowing the 110 mm option was a solution to the problem. It is clearly not a solution for those involved in the haddock and whiting sector of the industry. It may benefit those who fish off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for cod, monkfish and megrim—those catches may be a staple part of their returns.

Sir Michael Shaw: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: Because of the shortage of time I have already prevented other hon. Members from taking part,

so it would be sensible not to give way. However, I should happily give way to those hon. Members who have had no opportunity to make their speeches.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall take up that invitation. My hon. Friend has already mentioned whiting and it is important to remind the Minister that Northumberland has a winter-directed whiting fishery, but that would be prevented by the Government's 1990 proposals. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind when he considers the responses he has received to those proposals.

Mr. Maclennan: I hope that the Minister heard that.
My right hon. Friends and I were moved to seek this debate because of the totally unacceptable nature of the mandatory tie-up scheme. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office is to reply to the debate. We welcome his participation.
The tie-up scheme is ill conceived. Not only will demerits flow from it, but it is unlikely to achieve its purpose. We have been advised by the Minister that the objective was to reduce the fishing effort by 30 per cent. However, it is extremely unlikely that that will flow from the scheme. I believe that people will fish harder and longer during the two thirds of the month left to them. That will, of course, disrupt their family lives. Of course, it will also lead to their running risks which in proper circumstances they would not choose to run.
A reduction of 30 per cent. in their effort is palpably not going to happen. That is why I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask him whether, when it becomes clear that it has not happened, the Government will condone any suggestion from Brussels that the tie-up period should be extended beyond eight days in the hope that that would further reduce fishing effort. It must not be. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical assurance on that point for the future. The safety of our fishermen must be our prime concern. I am deeply concerned, like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), about the possibility of people being caught at sea, not being able to ride out the storm, and being forced to come back because of the threat of having to pay substantial fines of up to £50,000.
The rigidity of the scheme is one of its most worrying features. In my constituency, one skipper, Mr. Andrew Bremner of Wick, found himself at the end of the first week, having stayed tied up, wanting to get out but recognising that the weather was worsening. He sought permission to leave Wick and transfer to Scrabster before his eight-day period was up—a perfectly sensible thing to do. He was even prepared to take the fishery officer with him to show that he did not intend to do anything that he should not do, but he was told firmly by the Department that it was not permissible to transfer. As a result, he lost two additional days of fishing and was tied up effectively for 10 days.
Such rigidity in the operation of the scheme is unacceptable. Because the fines are so steep, it is inconceivable that fishermen will want to run the risk of incurring penalties by doing what they are not permitted to do under the scheme. Other hon. Members have spoken of the problem of getting back to the home port, and how that too could cut down on fishing time. The scheme is riot flexible, it is not safe and it will seriously erode the


economic livelihood of those in the industry. It establishes a highly dangerous precedent within the Community schemes for regulation, and it should be abandoned.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that proper alternatives had not been canvassed. I do not understand how he can say that, in the light of the representations that have been made by the fishing industry all around the country about what conservation measures ought to be advanced by the Government. I know of at least five proposals from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The Parliamentary Secretary has bowed in the direction of one of them tonight—the single net on the vessel in the context of the 110 mm relaxation of the rule. Many other proposals on conservation have been made, but they do not seem to have been prosecuted with the vigour that one looks for from a Government.
The attitude to the 90 mm diamond-shaped mesh, with the 80 mm square net panel at the end of the net, seem not to be based on any scientific belief that it would not be effective. Experimentation suggests that it would be. If the Minister says that it will not wash, is he simply saying that it is not acceptable in Brussels? If so, what work has Brussels done on it? Can the Minister of State clarify the point in his reply to the debate? On what scientific evidence are the Government resting the case against the 90 mm diamond mesh, with the 80 mm square mesh panel?
What has been the attitude of the Government to the whole question of industrial fishing? A large part of the industry believes that that should be tackled as a matter of urgency. There have been proposals for an increase in the minimum landing size for whiting and suggestions about how better enforcement in the Community might help to tackle more effectively the problem of conservation.
But those conservation methods, which have not been prosecuted since they were first advanced by the industry about two years ago, cannot of themselves tackle the great problem of the over-capacity of the industry and the impossibility of an industry of this size returning adequate rewards to fishermen in the face of diminishing stocks.
The Government have taken some comfort from the fact that prices have risen somewhat in the last year. But they are not back—or, if they are, only just—to the level that they were in 1987, and costs have risen enormously during that time. The Minister must acknowledge that prices are bumping against a ceiling imposed from outside the fishing industry by the fact that fish must compete with white meat and other forms of protein, and there is not a market situation that will allow increased pricing for a diminishing volume of fish to solve the industry's problems.
As that route is blocked, it is becoming increasingly hard to understand why the Government have not listened to the advice offered not only by the industry but by hon. Members from six parties in the House, most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on the question of structure. It is not possible to tackle the problem without looking at the whole question of structure.
We are financing other countries, through our contributions to the EC, to restructure their industries—to put them in a better position to compete—and we see the seriousness of that when we examine the prospect of EC enlargement. The Scandinavian countries are now turning

to the EC and are knocking at our door. Are we to face an enlarged Community with our fleet debilitated and run down as a result of the refusal of the Government to pick up what is Community policy—to make the restructuring of the fleet an integral part of their approach to tackling the problem of over-supply?
I appeal to the Government to open the dialogue properly with the industry on this issue. One constructive development in the debate occurred at the beginning, when the Minister made it clear that at least two of the old objections to a decommissioning scheme had been disposed of. It is not because the Public Accounts Committee ruled against decommissioning schemes in principle and it is not because the scheme that we had pumped money up the Humber, as it has been colourfully described. It is because the Government believe that they would not get value for money.
Can we sit around the table and discuss that? Can we discuss it—the Government, the industry and the experts who advise the industry, if necessary with people from Brussels—and have a meeting of minds on the question of value for money? Everyone wants value for money. What block stands in the way of resolving the problem? The Government will do themselves a service if tonight the Minister expresses a willingness to initiate such a dialogue. That is the least we can expect to come from this debate. I appeal to the Minister, as a person who, I know, does not want to see the industries of Scotland die around him, to open that debate with his response tonight.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his welcome. This has been a very interesting debate. Bearing in mind the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has gone to such considerable pains to persuade our colleagues in the European Community to reduce the number of days from 10 to eight, I was slightly surprised when the hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the Government would not extend the eight-day tie-up period. I think that he can be fairly safe with that assurance.
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is making a great error if he confuses structure—the Government agree that there is a need to look at structure—with a decommissioning scheme per se. A number of countries in the Community have begun to consider individual transferable quota schemes, for example. The Government have themselves submitted a capacity aggregation scheme. In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) confused the need to look at structure with the need to look solely at decommissioning. That is a matter to which I will return in a few moments.
The motion refers to
a crisis in the fishing industry".
In fact, the Government are trying to conserve fish stocks with a view to preventing a real crisis in the future. The worst crisis of all for the fishing industry would arise if there were no fish in the sea. During the 1970s, the North sea herring stock collapsed because of over-fishing, forcing the closure of the fishery. Only through careful conservation has the fishery recovered. On the other side of the Atlantic, the George bank haddock stock collapsed over 20 years ago and has never recovered. In both cases, there were severe consequences for the fishermen and for


the processing industries that were dependent on the fisheries. That is a matter to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) referred. We must avoid such a collapse of our cod and haddock stocks.
Conservation measures, such as the introduction of the 90 mm square mesh panel and the eight-day tie-up, have an effect of fishermen's incomes. No one denies that. I very much regret it, but we must balance short-term needs against the long-term survival of the industry.
Tragic events towards the end of last year reminded us —if any reminder was necessary—that fishing is a hazardous occupation and that the safety of crews must be put above all other considerations. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that, in administering the eight-day tie-up, we shall not require fishermen to do anything that would directly put their vessels at risk. In the same way, we shall expect fishermen not to behave irresponsibly by going to sea when it is not safe to do so.

Mr. Salmond: If that is the case, will the Minister answer the substantive questions that were put to him during the debate? Does he not agree that this measure will force fishermen to sea under economic pressure? Also, what will happen when a boat that is riding out a storm runs up against the eight-day period? It will have to set sail for port when prudence dictates that it should continue to shelter. Will the Minister please answer those two specific questions? Can he explain how these things will not constitute a danger to fishermen at sea?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the scheme will be administered flexibly. Under the scheme, as he knows, there is a requirement to give 12 hours' notice of the port where the tie-up will take place. That does not have to be the port of normal location. If it were not sensible, because of weather conditions, to make for port, we should expect the fisheries inspector to take a flexible view. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary.
I am delighted if that reassures the hon. Gentleman. If he is saying that, as a result of the scheme, people will seek to maintain their livelihood by continuing to aim for the same levels of stocks, clearly he is arguing that the scheme will not reduce fishing activity. There is no way to reduce the number of fish coming out of the sea that will not result in a loss of income, other than an approach that offers an opportunity for both positions, which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to achieve through the use of equipment that is more selective in its take-up.

Mr. Morley: I would not disagree with the Minister that those steps will lead to a loss of income. We have consistently said that conservation steps must be taken and a reduction in effort must be made. Earlier today, we discussed set-aside for farmers, which is a form of reduction of methods. In such cases, farmers are compensated quite generously through the EC Commission. The decommissioning scheme has funds, within the Commission, for compensation. Do not fishermen deserve the same consideration?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's analogy between set-aside and fishing reductions is good. Set-aside has been introduced in farming to deal with the

problem of surpluses and is costing a great deal for the taxpayer to maintain. In this case, we are dealing with the problem of shortages of fish stocks.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the decommissioning scheme is equivalent to set-aside, a better analogy would be a lay-up scheme. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, far from improving the position, the decommissioning scheme could make it worse, because it would put money into the industry that could be invested in vessels with a greater capacity to catch fish that were in short supply. The hon. Gentleman must face that.
If the hon. Gentleman's answer to the problem is that the Government should embrace decommissioning as a policy, he may wish to reflect that those EC countries with decommissioning schemes, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, are also covered by the eight-day tie-up rule —to which he took exception—because their decommissioning schemes have not worked and there is still a problem about their fleets' capacity to catch fish.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I still have a number of arguments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, but it means that several other Members will not have their questions answered.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did not my hon. Friend hear me refer to combining decommissioning with a strict licensing scheme? If the Government set the rules properly, it would not be necessary for funds used for decommissioning to be recirculated. That does not necessarily follow.

Mr. Forsyth: Far be it from me to take issue with my right hon. Friend, but he might recognise that we already have a strict licensing scheme. As for a decommissioning scheme, my right hon. Friend, in common with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about a well targeted scheme that would work, but there have been few suggestions about how it would work in practice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way to an hon. Gentleman who has only just entered the Chamber.
A decommissioning scheme would not help to conserve stocks. It would be most attractive to the least efficient vessels, which exert little pressure on the stocks. It would result in a large inflow of capital to the industry to modernise the existing fleet, and we could end up with a smaller fleet with greater catching power. The industry needs arrangements under which, by its own decisions, it can adjust better to the operations of the market.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked why, if a boat landed in Mallaig and returned to Orkney, the transit time should not count. The answer is, because the whole point of the eight-day rule is that it is time spent in port when fishing is not taking place. Transit time certainly adds to the time not available for fishing, but the whole point of the scheme is to reduce fishing activity. That is inherent in it and it must be faced.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the gear option did nothing for some boats. I agree that it does not have something for everyone. That is why it is an option, and


that is why we have made it clear to the Commission that the compulsory 110 mm mesh size is not acceptable. We need a reduction in fishing effort; the eight-day tie-up is one way of achieving it.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked what had happened to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposals on conservation, especially the one-net rule. We have pressed the Community to adopt most of the SFF proposals, including the one-net rule, but those proposals do not go far enough. We support the one-net rule, and we have convinced the European Commission of the need for it. For the past year we have been trying hard to persuade other member states of the need for the one-net rule, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister does not appear to be answering my points about the square mesh panel. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that there is enough evidence to justify the conservation benefits of the 90 mm diamond net with the 80mm square mesh panel? Surely trials done by the Sunbeam show that there is some evidence. Does he accept that trials to be conducted later this spring will allow further evidence to be gathered about the 90 mm net with the 80 mm square panel?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said nothing of the sort. We are not free agents in this matter. We have to persuade our colleagues in the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) pointed out, the Parliamentary Secretary has done sterling work in arguing the case. The reason why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland can explain the virtues of the system is that the work has been done in this country; and we are arguing the case with our colleagues. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to argue that we must try to reach a consensus on these and other matters within the Community.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that the United Kingdom was offering no alternative, but that is to ignore the capacity aggregation scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough said that, under the new scheme, some quotas would be filled but with fewer discards, and I agree. We must maintain landings but kill fewer fish unnecessarily. That goes to the root of our approach in the Community.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that more Scottish boats than vessels of any other Community country were caught by the eight-day rule. Typically, he did not point out that 75 per cent. of United Kingdom haddock is landed in Scotland—two thirds of the entire EC availability. So the responsibility for achieving recovery of the stock lies with the United Kingdom, particularly with Scotland—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have given way generously, and there are only two minutes left.
Tonight's debate has been about the future of the fishing industry. We have heard much about the need to help fishermen. The best way to do that is to ensure that there will continue to be fish in the sea to be caught. We have taken the lead in the European Community in

arguing for new conservation measures. Our scientists have predicted that, if no action is taken this year, half the haddock caught in the North sea will be discarded as too small. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that that was unacceptable. Catching fish before they reach a decent size and throwing dead fish back into the sea is no way to manage a modern industry.
We continue to press for early action at European Community level to make fishing gear more selective, so that it lets small fish escape. We are also prepared to take the necessary steps at national level to safeguard the stocks in which our fishermen have an interest. The urgent need to conserve fish stocks persuaded the Government to accept the effort limitation scheme and to propose changes in fishing gear. We shall not shirk our responsibility to conserve fish stocks for the long-term good of the industry by adopting policies—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 99.

Division No. 67]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bellotti, David
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morley, Elliot


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
O'Hara, Edward


Cox, Tom
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dewar, Donald
Rooney, Terence


Doran, Frank
Salmond, Alex


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Derek
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Macdonald, Calum A.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Maclennan, Robert



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Grist, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cran, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Curry, David
Hind, Kenneth


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dunn, Bob
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)






Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Powell, William (Corby)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, Put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the difficulties which may face fishermen as a result of the decisions for fish conservation reached at the latest EC Council of Fisheries Ministers, endorses the need for such measures to safeguard the long-term interests of fishermen themselves by reducing the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks, welcomes the Government's continuing efforts to secure improved conservation measures and congratulates the Government on securing at the last Fisheries Council a package of measures which included the maintenance of the principle of relative stability, continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague Preference and improved flexibility to take our western mackerel quota east of 4° West.

NATURAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
The the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Wood.]

Kashmir (Human Rights)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Terry Rooney: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate human rights in Kashmir.
At a time when the world's attention is focussed on events in the Gulf, it is right for us not to forget those other people who are seeking to establish their own rights and freedoms. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the subject of self-determination for the Baltic states, and I share their concern; but I believe that the situation in Kashmir has become a forgotten issue, and I am seeking to rectify that.
It is now some 43 years since the partition of India, but ever since then, Kashmir has been in a state of political limbo. The United Nations has passed resolutions on the region, but has failed to pursue them with any commitment—certainly with the vigour and enthusiasm that characterises more recent Security Council decisions.
The state of Kashmir is of strategic importance, bordering, as it does, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Tibet, Pakistan and, of course, India. Throughout history, it has been subjected to incursions and acts of aggression. After 2,000-odd years of strife and torment, surely it is time that the people of Kashmir had peace and stability in their lives.
Since 1947, there have been sporadic outbursts of internal conflict and strife, and peace-keeping forces have been sent into the area. Nothing that has previously happened compares with the present position. There are more than 250,000 troops in Kashmir, notionally to maintain law and order. The reality, I suspect, is vastly different.
Despite the curfews and censorship imposed by the armed forces, reports of horrific abuses of human rights are coming from the region, including the torture of protesters, looting, rape, arson and murder. While much of the evidence is inevitably anecdotal, the refusal of the authorities to allow access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to investigate these claims points to their validity and substance. Demonstrations in support of self-determination have numbered up to 1 million people. Surely such strength of feeling deserves recognition.
It is important at this stage to point out that these demonstrations are cross-cultural and multi-religious. The population of Kashmir numbers over 10 million. While the majority of the population are Muslim, there are very significant minorities of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and other religious groups. Support for the right of Kashmiris to self-determination crosses all religious and cultural boundaries.
We cannot and should not condone violence for its own end—the pursuit of freedom. It is, alas, inevitable that when tensions are high and fear is the prevalent emotion that innocent people are maimed, injured and even killed. It has been estimated that 1·5 million people have fled from the area or are incarcerated in camps in Delhi, Amritsar and Jammu. These events are taking place in Commonwealth countries. That is why I believe that it is the duty of the House to facilitate the ending of these hostilities and atrocities.
The current disputes over Kashmir can be traced back to 1947 and the independence of India and Pakistan. Resolutions were passed by the United Nations on 21 April 1948 and 13 August 1948 requiring a plebiscite to be carried out to obtain the views of the Kashmiri people, with the unfortunate restriction that this was to be on whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Despite that limitation, no referendum has ever been allowed. It is to the detriment of all concerned that we have now had 43 years of inertia, of needless suffering of a proud nation and of blind eyes being turned. The convenience of politicians has been allowed to transcend the needs and wishes of Kashmir.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House have condemned the violence in Kashmir and expressed support for the concept of self-determination. Now it is time to translate that support into action. If the Indian Government are unwilling or unable to find a way forward, I suggest that the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of all the Commonwealth countries should be called on to mediate and prepare the ground. That must be by way of a plebiscite of the Kashmiri people, with all options on the agenda—that is, remaining part of India, joining Pakistan or forming an independent state. I favour the last, but I do not presume to impose my views on others.
In my home city of Bradford, there are more than 30,000 citizens of Kashmiri origin, many of whom have relatives still living in Kashmir. They are at the moment in complete ignorance as to the health and welfare of these relatives because of the news blackout and the poor state of information. They are denied the opportunity of visiting by the Government's refusal to issue visas. I know that there are thousands of Kashmiris in other parts of the country with the same concern. We also have a duty to them to resolve this issue as speedily and as peacefully as possible.
I believe that it is imperative to investigate the question of abuses of human rights. I call on the Indian authorities to allow Amnesty International to be given free and unhindered access to assess the situation in the unbiased and objective manner for which it is rightly renowned.

Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate. Does he agree that it is important that the Indian Government immedately allow Amnesty International to investigate the many allegations about human rights abuses? Will he also confirm that the scale and savagery of the brutality that the people of Kashmir have faced in recent years at the hands of the Indian security forces are comparable to anything that has occurred in Kuwait? Does he agree that it is necessary for the Government to confirm—as they have confirmed in the case of Kuwait and the Baltic states—that the people of Kashmir have a right to determine their future and the destiny of their country on the basis that he has outlined?

Mr. Rooney: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He also represents an area of Bradford. He has had an opportunity that I have not yet had to visit Kashmir. I have heard—as the House has heard—his first-hand accounts of some of the atrocities in that area. However, I understand that even he, in his mission of good

will, was denied access to many areas of the state of Kashmir. Perhaps that gives us a lead to the forces at work in the region.
It is imperative that, wherever possible, we expose any abuse of human rights and any atrocities that man is capable of perpetrating on others. Amnesty International has a record which is second to none. I do not believe that anyone could doubt the integrity of such an organisation. I am worried that it is being denied access in the same way that the Red Cross is being denied access. To me, that is a sign that something extremely serious is happening there, about which the Government and forces in the area do not wish the outside world to know.
Violence is being perpetrated on an enormous scale. That is certain. Where the blame lies need not interest us especially. Blame does not bring anyone back to life, heal injuries, restore lives or give orphans parents. If we are to resolve conflict—the Baltic states and Kuwait have been mentioned, but there are many other areas of the world where conflict exists—we need to do it on a reasoned basis and on the back of sound information. If, for whatever reason, the Government and authorities of India will not allow parliamentary or similar delegations, we must press them to allow Amnesty International to assess the situation and to report back to Governments, to the Commonwealth and to the United Nations, so that progress can be made.
Self-determination is enshrined in article 1 of the United Nations charter. People must be free to determine their own Government, their own life style, their own form of democracy and their own mode of economy. That must be inherent in any civilised society. It is not for other powers to impose their will, by force, by aggression or by any other means. Self-determination must be a basic human right, and must be the basis of any freedom and any democracy. Any self-respecting politician would accept that.
We are constantly told that India is the world's largest democracy, with 1 billion people—perhaps more. There are many turmoils in India and one does not envy the President, the Prime Minister or the Parliament of India their job. Nevertheless, we must tell India that, because of its federal nature, unless it resolves conflicts such as that in Kashmir to the satisfaction of the world community, it will be in danger of tearing itself apart. That would be a tragedy for all of us—especially for all the people of India and for the region generally.
I have received many statements, depositions and reports from all sections of the community. I absolve no one from blame for the violence that is occurring in Kashmir. Some would say that it is entirely the work of Hindus against Muslims—others, vice versa. I do not think that we are in the business of apportioning blame. We are in the business of removing the violence, establishing peace and stability and restoring human rights in the area and allowing a proud people to get on with their lives in a pleasant land. We want to make it an attractive place for people to live, to give children hope for the future and the elderly peace in their last years. The situation in Kashmir has been allowed to continue for far too long —from 1947 to 1991—with little sign of any progress being made.
As part of the Commonwealth, we have a lead role to play. It is right and proper that we should use the good offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to impress upon India the need to bring Amnesty


International in as a starting point and then to use diplomatic channels and so on to allow the people of Kashmir a plebiscite so that they can express their wishes and desires for the future of Kashmir. In that sense, they are no different from the people of the Baltic states, the people of Kuwait and the people of all the oppressed nations of the world. The difference is that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people of Kashmiri descent have been in prison, and they think that it is about time that we took the same positive action on this difficult state of affairs as has been taken in other arenas.
Recently I received a petition carrying 3,000 signatures. I was intrigued to find that name 137 was that of one John Major. Unfortunately, he lives at Silverhill drive in Bradford, not at No. 10 Downing street.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bradford. North (Mr. Rooney) and I congratulate him on bringing the subject of Kashmir before the House again.
We share concern about the violence in Kashmir, the tension it has caused between India and Pakistan—both good friends of Britain—and the need for human rights to be respected. It is, however, important to understand something of the historical background to the problem before considering the present situation.
At the time of Indian independence in 1947, there were some 560 princely states, of which Jammu and Kashmir was one of the largest. A majority of its population were Muslim, but there was a large Hindu community, and also significant Buddhist and tribal minorities. The Maharaja was Hindu.
The rulers of all the princely states were advised to accede to either India or Pakistan. Most did, opting for the country in which their state was situated. At independence, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had still not opted for either country. However, an uprising among the Muslims of his western territories, supported by irregular forces from the new state of Pakistan, led the Maharaja to sign an instrument of accession to India in October 1947. Pakistan did not accept the decision, and the first war broke out between the two newly independent countries. It continued throughout 1948 until a ceasefire came into effect on 1 January 1949. In July 1949, India and Pakistan agreed a ceasefire line which passed through the territory of the former princely state. That line was subsequently redefined as the "line of control" after the 1971 war.
At the heart of the present disturbances in Kashmir is the long-standing dispute over its status. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, India and Pakistan originally agreed to a plebiscite covering the entire princely state, as set out in United Nations resolutions in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The issue was whether Kashmir should accede to India or to Pakistan, not independence. But apart from that, much has happened since then. There have been two wars over Kashmir. The territory of the former princely state has in practice been divided between India and Pakistan by the line of control. In 1972, India and Pakistan reached a fresh agreement at Simla. Under the Simla agreement both countries agreed
to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".

Those are words with which many hon. Members will be familiar. Both sides also committed themselves to a
final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir".
So the earlier agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was superseded by the 1972 agreement.
That brief synopsis shows some of the complex background to the Kashmir problem. It also has a bearing on the present violence there. The disturbances over Kashmir which have racked the relations between India and Pakistan ever since their independence are centred on the valley of Kashmir. The Indian constitution gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, but the Muslim inhabitants of the valley of Kashmir have felt an increasing dissatisfaction with their situation.
We have consistently condemned those who resort to terrorist tactics for political ends. The bomb and the bullet are no substitute for the ballot box and the democratic process. We support the Government of India in their efforts to deal with the challenge from terrorist violence in Kashmir, but, at the same time, we have urged the Indian Government to try to exercise the greatest restraint in dealing with the serious threat to law and order facing them in Kashmir.
There have been harrowing accounts of what has taken place in Kashmir. We have no way of knowing how reliable such reports are, but we are confident that the Indian Government are trying to prevent such occurrences. However, even if only a small part of the reports is true, it is too much. We condemn abuses of human rights wherever in the world they occur. In relation to Kashmir, we have regularly made clear to the Indian Government our concern that human rights must be respected. In their response, members of the Indian Government have underlined the seriousness of the challenge facing them and the violence committed by the militants, which we acknowledge.
Members of the Indian Government have also assured us of their respect for human rights and their determination to do their best to ensure that human rights are not violated. The Government have instituted a special court in Kashmir to examine complaints against the police. Cases of alleged wrongdoing by the security forces are also reported to be under investigation. We welcome those concrete steps as signs of the Indian Government's intentions, but we shall continue to urge them to practise the utmost restraint in confronting the challenge in Kashmir.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North referred to Amnesty International. As I expect he knows, we welcomed the previous Indian Government's decision to allow members of Amnesty International to go to India for private visits and meetings with the Government. The previous Government of India faced considerable complaint from their Opposition for making that decision. We hope that the present Indian Government will stand by that commitment. We have always commended Amnesty International to that Government, and we hope that Amnesty will soon be able to carry out whatever investigation it has in mind.
India has often claimed that the disturbances it faces in Kashmir could be easily dealt with if the militants were deprived of the support that they receive from within Pakistan. The Pakistan Government deny that they are giving any support, except moral and political support for fellow Muslims in difficulties. Whatever the truth of that,


we have also urged the Pakistan authorities to do their utmost to avoid any steps that might appear to confirm India's suspicions.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should point out to the Indian authorities that they are playing into the hands of the militants by not stamping firmly on atrocities against the population of Kashmir? Such acts only serve to cause greater bitterness. It is well known that feelings against the Indian authorities have grown much stronger as the months have gone by and little progress has been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if not only Amnesty International but a group from the House visited the region, with, one hopes, the co-operation of the Indian authorities, to assess the situation and report back to the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. The institution by the Indian Government of the special court in Kashmir is in response to the type of argument my hon. Friend has deployed. I can inform my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was to visit Kashmir with the agreement of the Indian Government earlier this month, but that trip has had to be delayed because of the conflict in the Gulf.
There is some evidence that there has been a welcome reduction in the level of violence in Kashmir in recent weeks. It is a great tragedy that an area so rich in natural assets, not least the resourcefulness of the people, and outstanding beauty, with which I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and many other hon. Members are familiar, should have been plunged into such serious law and order difficulties.
To find a lasting solution to the long-running problem and bring to an end the violence which distresses us all, it will be necessary first to build up confidence between all those involved. We welcome the series of bilateral discussions currently under way between India and Pakistan about practical confidence-building measures. We also welcome the efforts being made by the present Indian Government to re-establish a political dialogue with the Muslim communities of the Kashmir valley. We hope that those discussions will contribute to the process of finding a solution to the problem of Kashmir.
The House can be assured that we will continue to watch the situation in Kashmir closely and encourage all concerned to resolve the matter peacefully. Only that will bring a lasting end to the recent violence which so saddens all who are friends of India and Pakistan, and of the Kashmiri people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.